Archaeological Investigation of the Elizabeth Hemings Site (44AB438)

100

6.08 Third Roundabout 5.58

50 5.08 4.58 4.08 3.58 3.08 0 2.58 2.08 1.58 1.08 -50 0.58 0.08 Total Artifact Density 50 100 150 200 250 300 (per square foot)

0 25 50 75 100 Feet

by Fraser Neiman Leslie McFaden and Derek Wheeler

DECEMBER 2000

MONTICELLO DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES NUMBER 2 Table of Contents

List of Figures ...... ii

List of Tables ...... iv

1. Introduction ...... 1 Geographical Setting ...... 2

2. The Documentary Record ...... 7 Elizabeth Hemings ...... 7 The Hemings Family ...... 8

3. Fieldwork: Methods and Results ...... 11 Initial Testing and the 1995 Field Season ...... 11 The 1996 Field Season ...... 12 Soils and Sediments ...... 13 Architectural Features ...... 13 Architectural Patterns ...... 15 Cobble Scatter ...... 18 Landscape Analysis ...... 18 Microtopography ...... 18 The Third Roundabout ...... 20 Site Structure ...... 22 Cost Surface Modeling ...... 22 Spatial Patterns ...... 24 Soil and Soil Chemistry ...... 24 Artifact Distributions ...... 33 Phytolith Analysis ...... 38

4. Artifacts ...... 45 Ceramics ...... 45 Consumption Patterns for Plates, Tea Bowls and Saucers ...... 47 Cost Implications of Ceramic Plate Discard Rates ...... 49 Ceramic Ware Types and Vessel Shapes ...... 50 Glass ...... 52 Architectural Materials ...... 52 Miscellaneous ...... 53

5. Summary ...... 54

References ...... 55

Appendix I. Artifact Inventory ...... 62

Appendix 2. Test Unit Locations ...... 99

i List of Figures

Figure 1. Locator map for Monticello Mountain in Albemarle County, Virginia ...... 1 Figure 2. Locator map for Elizabeth Hemings site ...... 3 Figure 3. Thomas Jefferson’s plat of the mansion proper and roads including the four roundabouts (N-225) ...... 4 Figure 4. Details of Jefferson plats showing Betty Hemings site location ...... 6 Figure 5. Elizabeth Hemings’s family tree ...... 9 Figure 6. Test units excavated during the 1995 and 1996 field seasons ...... 12 Figure 7. Field school students excavating during the 1996 season ...... 13 Figure 8. Typical soil profile for the Elizabeth Hemings site ...... 14 Figure 9. Remains of the Elizabeth Hemings hearth ...... 14 Figure 10. East profile of chimney prop post hole located downhill of hearth feature ...... 15 Figure 11. Tidewater example of dwelling employing chimney props ...... 15 Figure 12. Conjectural outline of Betty Hemings dwelling based upon archaeological evidence ....16 Figure 13. Cobble scatter possibly associated with field clearing ...... 17 Figure 14. One-foot contour map of the Elizabeth Hemings Site ...... 19 Figure 15. Percent slope map with superimposed two-foot contour map ...... 20 Figure 16. Plan curvature map of topography surrounding the Elizabeth Hemings site ...... 21 Figure 17. East profile of test trench excavated across the third roundabout ...... 21 Figure 18. Cost surface contour map superimposed over percent slope map ...... 23 Figure 19. H-plot summarizing the pattern of correlations among log-transformed element concentrations from the 10-foot interval soil samples, Wisconsin Lab ...... 27 Figure 20. Contour map of the spatial pattern held in common in the distributions of Ca, K, and Mg, as estimated by principle component analysis...... 28 Figure 21. Contour maps of the principle component scores for Ca, K, and Mg and of the distribution of P ...... 29 Figure 22. Contour maps of the principle component scores for Ca, K, and Mg and of the distribution of P ...... 31 Figure 23. Total artifact distribution map for all excavated test units at the Elizabeth Hemings site ...... 32 Figure 24. Total artifact density contour map for test squares around the Elizabeth Hemings house site ...... 33 Figure 25. Distribution of wrought nails (top) and cut nails (bottom) at the Elizabeth Hemings site ...... 35 Figure 26. Distribution of construction nails (top) and finishing nails (bottom) at the Elizabeth Hemings site ...... 36 Figure 27. Distribution of pearlware (top) and creamware (bottom) ceramic sherds ...... 37 Figure 28. Distribution map for Chinese porcelain sherds. Note the similar distribution to the pearlware sherds ...... 38 Figure 29. Phytolith sample locations denoted by their sample number ...... 39 Figure 30. Plot of logratios for C3 vs. C4 grass phytoliths and arboreal vs. grass phytoliths ...... 42 Figure 31. Logratio plots for chloridoid vs. pooid and panicoid vs. pooid grasses. Labels are the same as in Figure 29 ...... 43 Figure 32. Pearlware bowl recovered from the Betty Hemings site ...... 46 Figure 33. Plate Index values with exact 95% confidence limits for 7 Mulberry Row Sites and the Hemings and Stewart Sites. The Dry Well and Building O sites are known to be significantly earlier than the rest ...... 48

ii Figure 34. Tea Index values with exact 95% confidence limits for 7 Mulberry Row sites and the Hemings and Stewart Sites ...... 48 Figure 35. Proportion of plates and platters that occur in different ceramic ware types at the Hemings and Stewart Sites ...... 51 Figure 36. Proportion of tea cups and saucers that occur in different ware types at the Hemings and Stewart Sites ...... 51 Figure 37. Miscellaneous artifacts recovered from the Betty Hemings site ...... 53

iii List of Tables

Table 1. Correlations (Spearman’s r) between the ranks of element concentrations tested at three independent soil labs ...... 25 Table 2. Relative frequencies of grass sub-families expressed in percent of species in total grass flora. Data extrapolated from frequency maps ...... 40 Table 3. Variation in relative frequencies of phytolith taxa by depth ...... 40 Table 4. Variation in relative frequencies of phytolith taxa by location ...... 41 Table 5. Minimum vessel count for the Elizabeth Hemings site ...... 45 Table 6. Mean ceramic date for the Elizabeth Hemings ...... 46

iv 1. Introduction

The Monticello of traditional historical memory is has played an important role in calling attention to the neoclassical mansion built and rebuilt by the existence of the real historical Monticello Thomas Jefferson over a period that began in (Heath 1999, Kelso 1997, Sanford 1995). By 1769 and ended with Jefferson’s death in 1826. uncovering the buried physical traces of long- However, the real historical Monticello was a vanished living and working spaces of enslaved 5000-acre plantation that was home not only to and free workers, archaeologists have helped raise Jefferson and his family, but also to scores of free the real historical Monticello above the threshold workmen and hundreds of enslaved African of historical visibility. This report is a Americans. Slavery made possible the Monticello contribution to that ongoing effort. It describes of traditional memory. It was the economic the recent archaeological investigation of a small foundation of the society that produced Thomas domestic site at Monticello that was once the Jefferson. The connections among the members home of a central member of the Monticello of these groups, characterized by a complex mix community, Elizabeth Hemings, during the of cooperation and conflict, were fundamental to decade or so that preceded her death in 1807. the lives of all. Getting the history of Monticello Known to Jefferson and his family as right requires documenting and explaining the Betty, Hemings was the matriarch of an extended social and economic dynamics exhibited by this slave family whose members filled the ranks of complex community over time. domestic servants and skilled artisans at Over the past two decades, archaeology Monticello. By the time of Jefferson’s death in

Figure 11. Monticello Mountain, the core of Thomas Jefferson’s Albemarle County, Virginia plantation, depicting Jefferson period roads (red), field boundaries (yellow), archaeological sites (black) and the Elizabeth Hemings site (orange). Monticello Mountain is bounded on the north and east by the Rivanna River, the Meadow Branch to the south, Moore’s Creek to the northwest and Mount Alto (Carter’s Mountain) on the west.

1 1826, one-third of the 130 African Americans especially attractive. The first was the Rivanna, who were listed as part of his Albemarle County which offered transportation for tobacco crops to estate belonged to this one family. Recent the James River, the Chesapeake Bay, and historical, genetic, and statistical research ultimately Atlantic markets. It also provided a (Gordon-Reed 1997, Foster et al. 1998, Neiman mill seat, of which Peter Jefferson would 2000), makes it clear that six of her grandchildren eventually take advantage. The second attraction were Thomas Jefferson’s children with Sally was high-quality soil. Jefferson’s tract was entirely Hemings, Elizabeth Hemings’s youngest underlain by the fertile Davidson soil association daughter. (USDA 1981). Davidson clay loams are the This is a remarkable record of personal product of deep weathering of the Catoctin and familial achievement within the bonds of formation, a mass of metamorphosed basalt slavery. Both documents and archaeological (greenstone), with inter-stratified sandstone beds, surveys offer tantalizing clues about the that comprises the Southwest Mountains uniqueness of Hemings’s experience at (Sherwood 1981). Monticello, but appreciating that uniqueness By 1740, Peter Jefferson was living at requires fitting the historical facts and Shadwell, his home farm on the northern bank of archaeological artifacts into a larger historical the Rivanna. Recent fieldwork, conducted as part context. This is an ongoing process, the first of the ongoing Monticello Plantation steps of which are reported here. We aim to Archaeological Survey, has revealed that the explore the physical outcomes, in terms of site Monticello tract, located on the southern bank, location and structure, architecture, and material was first settled c. 1750 by enslaved African- possessions, of the complex interactions between Americans working on an outlying quarter farm Betty Hemings and the rest of the Monticello associated with Shadwell. This early Monticello community, including Thomas Jefferson. quarter was located on the eastern slope of the mountain. Geographical Setting By 1770 Thomas Jefferson had begun to Our exploration of the Hemings Site begins with develop Monticello Plantation on his father’s its location, on the southern slopes of Monticello tract. Monticello Mountain became the site of Mountain, a short distance from Jefferson’s Jefferson’s house and the Monticello home farm mansion, which was situated on the mountain top quarter. Jefferson would eventually develop three (Figure 1). The site’s location can be understood outlying quarter farms, as part of Monticello at several spatial and historical scales. The largest Plantation. The Tufton Farm also lay south of of them relates to the settlement of the region by the Rivanna, while Lego and Shadwell shared the Europeans and Africans, beginning in the early northern bank. The Meadow Branch tributary 18th century. The smallest of them relates to the separated Monticello from Tufton Farm. internal spatial structure of Monticello Plantation, Jefferson began construction of his as it emerged in the late 18th century. We describe mansion at the top of Monticello mountain in these below. 1769. The locational choice built on gentry Monticello Mountain is part of the practice in the Coastal Plain. There, by the early Southwest Mountains, a chain of hills that runs 18th century, wealthy slave owners situated their along the western edge of the Virginia Piedmont. mansions so they commanded large vistas across Europeans, relying on the labor of enslaved wide flood planes. Piedmont geology denied a Africans to produce tobacco for trans-Atlantic prospect across a broad river valley. But markets, began to move out of the Coastal Plain Jefferson gained an even larger vantage by and into the Piedmont in the 1720's. The land building on Monticello Mountain. Given 18th- comprising Monticello Mountain was patented century transportation technology, Jefferson soon thereafter by Thomas Jefferson’s father, indirectly paid enormous costs for this decision Peter, as part of a larger tract that included land for the rest of his life, in the form of the increased on both the north and south banks of the effort required to get everything from building Rivanna River. Two features made the tract supplies to drinking water to his house. Those

2 Figure 2. Location map for he Elizabeth Hemings Site. costs were directly paid by his slaves, as required topographic constraints. Monticello Mountain by their forced labor for Jefferson and by their rises over 500 feet above the Rivanna. The north efforts to maintain themselves and their families. and west aspects of the mountain are steeply Whatever its ultimate causes, given the sloped, while the east and south faces present a costly location of the mansion on the mountain gentler grade, descending for one and a quarter top, the layout of the rest of the Monticello home miles before reaching the Rivanna River and its farm appears to have been engineered with tributary, the Meadow Branch. Most of the efficiency in mind. Two artificial features of the agricultural fields that comprised the Monticello resulting landscape are important to an home farm were located on these gentle eastern understanding the location of the Hemings Site and southern slopes, along with the houses of on the mountain: Mulberry Row and the home enslaved farm workers and an overseer. The small farm quarter. Jefferson laid out Mulberry Row, a quarter farm that Peter Jefferson had operated on 1000-foot long, straight street of plantation the mountain around 1750 was similarly situated outbuildings, conveniently adjacent to the (Figure 1.) mansion. To maximize its length, Mulberry Row The southern and eastern slopes of was oriented parallel to the major axis of the Monticello Mountain are dissected by mountain top’s contours. The structures along it, intermittently flowing springs that drain into the in which enslaved domestics and artisans worked Meadow Branch. Two springs are relevant to the and lived, enjoyed a southern exposure. location of the Hemings Site (Figure 2.). The The layout of Jefferson’s agricultural South Spring lay south of the homes of the operations on Monticello Mountain also followed enslaved laborers who worked the Monticello

3 home farm quarter. Its name was likely derived suggesting that both locations were important to from this spatial relationship. When there was Hemings. As we shall see, the proximity to water in it, the South Spring was the closest water Mulberry Row is understandable, given that many source for these individuals. Bailey’s Spring, of Hemings’s children lived and worked there. named for the Irish gardener whose house was Less clear is the attraction of Bailey’s Spring. located at the head of its drainage (see below), lay Hemings’s house might have been situated the southwest of the South Spring (Betts 1944:630). same distance from Mulberry Row and nearly as Because the watershed for Bailey’s Spring was close to the head of the South Spring, a more considerably smaller than the watershed for the reliable water source. But it was not. Why? South Spring, the latter was probably a more Several hypotheses might explain the reliable water source. choice, among them that Hemings was supplied The location of Hemings’s house needs water by family members working on Mulberry to be understood in the spatial context of Row, or that use of the South Spring was Mulberry Row, the home farm quarter, and the monopolized by farm laborers living to the north two water sources. The house was situated about of it. The latter might imply that Hemings’s house 350 feet south of Mulberry Row and a roughly was sited with spatial separation from enslaved equal distance from the head of Bailey’s Spring, farm workers in mind. Here we encounter more

Figure 3. Thomas Jefferson’s plat of the mansion proper and roads including the four roundabouts (N-225).

4 than a little ambiguity, due to our incomplete European sources and dubbed the ferme ornée or knowledge of where enslaved field hands lived. ornamental farm (Williamson 1995). The idea was We know the locations of a few farm laborers’s to use both crops and animals as ornamental houses north of the South Spring from elements in a landscape design whose primary Jefferson’s documents. But most of our motivation lay in aesthetic effects and costly knowledge on this topic comes from the display, not utility. It seems likely that the Plantation Archaeological Survey, which so far roundabouts were the only parts of the scheme has focused exclusively on the area north of the that were actually constructed. South Spring. Jefferson’s documents show no The four roundabouts were at least slave housing south of the South Spring, except partially constructed in succession over the course of course the Hemings Site itself. But it is not of several decades. The First Roundabout clear that absence of documentary evidence is enclosed the main house at the very summit of evidence of actual absence of slave settlement the mountain and was finished by 1772. south of the South Spring. Archaeological Generally oval in shape, one straight segment evidence from systematic survey of this area is formed Mulberry Row. The Second Roundabout required to resolve the issue. encircled the kitchen garden and orchards planted In the mean time, additional light on the on the slopes just below the mansion; completion location of Hemings’s house is forthcoming from of this road came roughly a decade after the first, a finer-grained consideration of the mountaintop in 1782. The Third Roundabout was finished in landscape. Of particular importance here is the 1795. Construction of the Fourth Roundabout system of the four “roundabout” roads, laid out began in the previous year. by Jefferson, that circled the mountain at roughly The Third and Fourth Roundabouts constant elevation (Figure 3)1. The roundabouts marked a transition zone between the ornamental were linked by additional roads, referred to by and agricultural precincts of the Monticello Jefferson as “1 in 10s” and “1 in 20s”, depending Mountain landscape. Hemings’s house was on their slopes. The roundabout system had a located in this zone. It stood 30 feet south of the practical role as an internal transportation system Third Roundabout roadbed. The house’s location for the mountaintop. But it also had an decorative is documented on two plats, drawn by Jefferson component. It is clear from Jefferson’s plans, that himself. The first, dated c. 1806, labels the house he intended the roundabouts to be integrated into “B.Hem’s”. The second, drawn c. 1809, after a larger ornamental scheme, borrowed from Hemings’s death in 1807, identified it only as a “Quarter” (Figure 4). The same Jefferson plats reveal that two 1 other dwellings were located on the Roundabout There are three numbering systems in roads, not far from Hemings’s house. Both were place for cataloguing Jefferson drawings. The the houses of free white workmen. Bailey’s was first was introduced by Fiske Kimball, where all the closest dwelling. It stood just south of the entries are sequentially numbered after a “K” Second Roundabout, on the south-facing slope designator (Kimball 1968). After the discovery below the fenced orchard (see Figure 4). or attribution of additional Jefferson Beginning in 1794, Scottish gardener Robert documents, Frederick Nichols reorganized the Bailey and his family occupied this house. By papers and sequentially numbered them after an 1802 Bailey was working in Washington, D.C.. ‘”N” designator (Nichols 1978). Recently, the Thus it is likely he was living at the site when Massachusetts Historical Society has begun to Hemings moved in next door. The structure re-catalog the materials for a third time. In this appears on Jefferson’s c. 1809 map of the report, we use the Nichol’s numbering system. mountaintop. Possibly it housed one or more of For a complete listing and concordance see the craftsmen Jefferson periodically hired for the http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/wilson/cata ongoing construction of his mansion. Proximity logs/catalog.html suggests the residents of Bailey’s shared the

5 Figure 4. Details of Jefferson plats (left, N-215, c.1806 and right, N-225, c.1809) showing Betty Hemings site location.

eponymous spring, when water was available in it, with Hemings. William Stewart, a white blacksmith from Philadelphia, occupied a house on the Third Roundabout, west of Hemings’s dwelling (see Figure 2). He lived there with his family from 1801-1807, a period coinciding with Elizabeth’s time at the Hemings site. The Stewart house stood unoccupied for a brief time until another white artisan, carpenter Elisha Watkins, resided there briefly with his own family in 1809-1810. After that time, like Elizabeth Hemings’ house, this structure seems not to have been further occupied and was torn down (Heath 1991:3). While Stewart’s house lay in the Meadow Branch watershed, it was about the same distance from the Bailey’s and Meadow Branch Spring heads. The location of the Hemings Site in the larger Monticello landscape appears to have been somewhat unusual. If current incomplete evidence proves accurate, other enslaved African- Americans lived along Mulberry Row or north of the South Spring. The fact that Hemings’s house was situated in a different precinct within the roundabouts, whose other denizens were free whites adds to the apparent anomaly. Some of the ingredients for an explanation can be found in the documentary record.

6 2. The Documentary Record

Elizabeth Hemings When she arrived at Monticello in 1775, Elizabeth Hemings came to Monticello as part of Hemings was roughly 40 years old. She gave birth Thomas Jefferson’s inheritance from his father- to two more children in the next two years, in-law, John Wayles. According to her grandson bringing the total of her known children to Madison, Hemings had been born around 1735, twelve. White housewright Joseph Neilson might the daughter of a “full-blooded African woman” have fathered one of these last two children and a sea captain named Hemings (Gordon-Reed (Madison Hemings recollections in Gordon-Reed 1997:245). Hemings was born into slavery, and 1997:245). Her exact whereabouts at Monticello was the property of Francis Eppes IV of during the 1770s and 1780s was not recorded, but Bermuda Hundred in Chesterfield County by as an enslaved domestic, Hemings in all 1746 when she was transferred to the household probability lived on Mulberry Row. Jefferson of John Wayles upon his marriage to Martha depicted several quarters for enslaved workers on Eppes, Martha Jefferson’s mother (Stanton, in a c.1776 map of Mulberry Row. They included a press). building with a central chimney termed the During her childhood and early “Negro quarter” as well as a “workmen’s house.” adulthood in the Eppes-Wayles households, It is likely that the joinery and blacksmith shops Hemings had become a valued enslaved house also provided housing for slaves. In the mid- servant. When John Wayles made out his will in 1770s Jefferson sketched plans to build 1760, “Betty Hemings and Jenny the cook” were neoclassical dwellings on Mulberry Row that the only two slaves singled out by name in the would complement his mansion; in so doing he division of his estate (John Wayles’s will, 15 April designated one for “Betty Hemings and family” 1760 in Tyler’s Quarterly Magazine 1924-1925). (N-38, Nichols 1978). Although only one such When Thomas Jefferson inherited a structure was built (the workman’s house now portion of his father-in-law’s land and slaves, called the “Weaver’s Cottage,” which still stands Hemings was 38 years old and had ten children, on Mulberry Row), Jefferson’s plans demonstrate six of whom were apparently fathered by John that Hemings probably lived on Mulberry Row Wayles (Gordon-Reed 1997:245); the paternity of throughout the 1770s and 1780s (Kelso 1997). the others is unknown. John Wayles’s daughter Hemings was one of Jefferson’s core Martha married Thomas Jefferson in 1772. When staff of house servants. She was reportedly one Wayles died a year later, Thomas and Martha of the servants in attendance when Martha Jefferson inherited a portion of his lands and Jefferson died in 1782 (Bear 1967:99). While slaves, including Hemings. Jefferson leased his slaves to neighboring At the settlement of John Wayles’ estate plantations whenever they could be spared (a in January 1774, Jefferson made a list of the slaves common practice), he specifically exempted he had inherited and their whereabouts. Hemings Hemings. While serving in France in 1788, had been living at one of Wayles’ outlying quarter Jefferson sent home the instructions that “Great farms in Amelia County, “Guinea;” and Jefferson George, Ursula, Betty Hemings [are] not to be transferred her and her youngest children to hired at all” (Boyd 1956:343). Later that year, another quarter farm, “Elk Hill,” in Goochland planning a short visit home, he listed a requisite County (Bear and Stanton 1997:329). Hemings’s few servants for his stay: “Great George, Ursula, grown children were sent immediately to and Betty Hemings will be there, of course...” Monticello. By February of 1775, however, (Boyd 1958:362). Jefferson brought Hemings and her remaining Documentary evidence suggests that by children to Monticello. By design or not, this 1790, Hemings was less active in the work force. move united the Hemings family at Jefferson’s In that year Jefferson took office as secretary of home plantation (Betts 1987). state, leaving his daughters and son-in-law behind

7 at Monticello. He instructed his foreman to make 1966:231) . available to them the house servants, but limited Like other slaves, Elizabeth raised both Hemings’s availability by noting “also...Betty vegetables and poultry, for food and for eggs, and Hemings, should her services be necessary” (Boyd sold them to the Jefferson family. Jefferson paid 1971:29). Until that time, all references to “Betty Hemings for a pullet 7 ½ d. [cents]” in Hemings place her at the Monticello home farm. 1776, and again in 1783 “Pd. Betty Hemings for Sometime between 1790 and 1794, however, she fowls” (Bear and Stanton 1997: 415, 533). After was sent to the outlying quarter farm, Tufton, returning to Monticello from Tufton, she which adjoined the home farm to the south. A continued this enterprise. Anne Cary Randolph, 1794 plat of Tufton shows a structure labeled one of Jefferson’s granddaughters, noted in her “B.Hem’s,” with the corresponding survey note, account book for the years 1805 and 1806 several “Betty H’s house” (N522-2, 6). With Jefferson purchases of eggs, chickens, and once, three absent, the aging woman may have been released cabbages from “Betty Hemming [sic].”(Gawalt from duties at the mansion. It was customary for 1994:19-38). Hemings might also have cared for the elderly to assist as nurses for slave children. children too young to work during this time, Hemings might have done so at the nearby farm. including her own grandchildren. In Jefferson’s Nevertheless, the causes behind the move to 1801 listing of slaves to be leased to John Craven Tufton remain obscure. and a corresponding list of those to be “retained:” Jefferson brought Hemings back to Hemings’s name is found in the latter column Monticello in 1795 when she was almost 60 years (Betts 1966: 60). That listing was updated when old. Jefferson’s “Roll of the negroes and where Jefferson partially crossed through her name and to be settled for the year 1795” situated her at noted, “d.07,” - meaning that she died in 1807. Monticello, and all subsequent records place her She was 72 years old. at the Monticello home farm (Betts 1966: 30, 50- 53, 56-57). The Hemings Family It is probably not coincidental that In his journals, Thomas Jefferson noted the Hemings’ move from Tufton back to Monticello working status of his slaves, whether house occurred in the same year that her daughter Sally servant, tradesman, or farm hand (e.g.: Betts bore her first child conceived at Monticello with 1987:128). Hemings and her children appear in Thomas Jefferson (Neiman 2000). This timing the skilled roles rather than the general category suggests that Hemings’ reappearance at of farm laborers. Hemings was a house servant; Monticello was designed to facilitate caring for her children and grandchildren also filled her grandchild Harriet. It seems reasonable to positions of responsibility and trust in the house assume that the log house where Hemings spent and in the workshops of Mulberry Row (Bear and her final years was built at this time. As we have Stanton 1997; see also Figure 5). seen, the structure was located on the Third Hemings’s oldest daughter, Mary Roundabout, and documents indicate that Hemings Bell, was a seamstress whose six workmen had completed construction of this children included Betsy, a house servant, and Joe road by 1795. The Hemings house would not Fossett, Jefferson’s blacksmith. Another daughter, have been a major undertaking; Jefferson “Bett” or Betty Brown, was also a seamstress and recorded that similar dwellings took about one likely the first Hemings to arrive at Monticello. week to build (Betts 1987:pl.67). Hemings almost Brown very likely accompanied Martha Jefferson certainly occupied the structure by 1802. Writing to Monticello upon the Jefferson’s’ marriage in in that year from Washington, Jefferson 1772 (Stanton in press: chapter “1774: People and instructed his daughter to “remove” any servants Property”). Bett’s children included gardener that had contracted the measles from the Wormley Hughes, butler Burwell Colbert, and mountaintop (and away from his mansion), house servants Edwin and Robert. Hemings’s suggesting that “Squire’s house would be a good oldest son Martin Hemings was Jefferson’s butler. place for the nail boys...and Betty Hemings’ for Nance Hemings worked as a weaver, and her own Bet’s or Sally’s children” (Betts and Bear daughter was a nurse for Jefferson’s

8 Figure 5. Elizabeth Hemings’ family tree (adapted from Stanton 1996).

grandchildren; Robert Hemings served as a carpenter. Peter Hemings took over as Jefferson’s personal manservant, and James Jefferson’s cook after his brother James was Hemings accompanied Jefferson to Paris to learn granted his freedom; Peter later became a French culinary arts. Daughter Critta Bowles was brewmaster (Bear and Stanton 1997:912). John another house servant, and her son Jamey became Hemings was a skilled cabinetmaker who was

9 responsible for much of the interior woodwork at Monticello. Hemings’s youngest daughter, Sally Hemings, was a lady’s maid (also described as chambermaid and seamstress (Stanton in press; Madison Hemings Memoirs in Gordon- Reed:248)) whose own children included carpenters Beverley, Madison, and Eston, and spinner Harriet, all the offspring of a long-term relationship with Thomas Jefferson (Madison Hemings’ Memoirs in Gordon-Reed 1997; Neiman 2000; Stanton in press). By the time Hemings moved to the Third Roundabout, six of her children were living at Monticello, probably along Mulberry Row and in the rooms under the South Terrace of the main house, which were just being completed (Stanton in press). Thus Hemings’s house stood just down the mountain slope from the homes of her children and grandchildren. Madison Hemings remembered his grandmother during her last days: “My earliest recollections are of my grandmother Elizabeth Hemings. That was when I was about three years old. She was sick and on her death bed” (Madison Hemings Memoirs in Gordon-Reed 1997:247). Whether she lay in her own house or was at her daughter Sally’s (Madison’s mother), or another of her children’s houses, one gathers that Elizabeth Hemings was surrounded by family members in death, as well as in life.

10 3. Fieldwork: Methods and Results

Initial Testing and the 1995 Field Season large enough area to facilitate the identification of The archaeological remains of Hemings’s house features while providing for quick excavation and were first identified by William Boyer of James the efficient sampling of artifacts (Kern 1996). Madison University, who conducted limited Test units were excavated stratigraphically and testing at the map-predicted site location in 1981, sediment was sifted through quarter-inch steel as part of Monticello’s summer archaeological mesh to ensure uniform recovery of artifacts. field school. Boyer quickly identified what he Following the archaeological recording system thought was a “cut and leveled area” established in 1979 for the excavation of approximately 20 feet downslope of the barbed Mulberry Row, Kern assigned each unit a unique wire fence that today separates woods and field provenience number known as an Excavation (Boyer 1983:5). He and his crew observed a small Register Number (ER); the layers and features-- concentration of brick bats and sandstone cobbles i.e., contexts--found within each unit were given around the base of a tulip poplar tree (Liriodendron consecutive letter designations (i.e., ER1864-A, tulipfera) and noted two shallow depressions about ER1864-B). A Stratigraphic Record form detailed 20 feet east of the tree. A single test pit (ER430) for each unit the stratigraphic location, elevation, excavated between the depressions produced and artifact content of the contexts included in three wrought nails, two pieces of dark green that unit. One profile of one test unit wall was bottle glass, and one fragment of burned bone drawn on the reverse side of the form. Finally, (Boyer 1983:5). A hand-made brick was also the location of each test unit was recorded on a recovered from the ground surface near the tulip base map of the site (Figure 6). tree. Boyer conducted no further testing in the Kern’s test units revealed the nature of interest of “maintaining the integrity of the site” the stratigraphic layers across the site (discussed (Boyer 1983:5). below) and pinpointed areas of artifact Testing of the Hemings Site resumed in concentration. Excavators dug forty-nine test 1995 as part of the Monticello/University of units on 20-foot centers within the site area, Virginia Archaeological Field School under the recovering artifacts from thirteen of the units. direction of Susan Kern. Research goals for the Two units west of the brick/cobble concentration 1995 field season included locating the remains of at the tulip poplar tree identified by Boyer in 1981 the house shown on the 1809 plat (see Figure 4), were then expanded. ER 1864 was increased to defining site boundaries, and verifying the 10-by-10 feet and ER 1865 was expanded to 4-by- location of the Third Roundabout. Kern 10 feet. The units revealed an artifact midden established a site datum linked to a survey point that continued northward, and two more 10-by established in 1977 by surveyor Kurt Glockner. 10-feet units (ERs 1900 and 1902) were The survey point, designated C-74, marked what subsequently opened to expose the remainder of Glockner believed was a point on the Third the midden (Kern 1995a, 1995b, 1996). Roundabout, based on his analysis of bearings During the 1995 field season, Kern and distances recorded by Thomas Jefferson noticed on the ground surface a concentration of when he surveyed the course in 1809. Kern’s site greenstone cobbles some sixty-five feet southeast baseline extended 300 feet east from point C-74 of the artifact midden. The cobble feature and was oriented on a bearing of North 60E 40’ measured 12 feet (north-south) by 23 feet (east- 51” East to match the alignment of Mulberry west) with a noticeably straight, even northern Row. Grid points were established every twenty edge. Three 10-by-10 feet test units (ERs 1897, feet across a 100 feet (north-south) by 300 feet 1898, and 1899) exposed the bulk of this stone (east-west) area, centered on the baseline. concentration. Four additional test units of Kern initiated excavations using 2-by-2 various dimensions were excavated to reveal the foot excavation units, a size designed to expose a periphery of the feature (ER 1903 measured 4-by-

11 Figure 6. Test Units excavated during the 1995 (light blue) and 1996 (dark blue) field seasons.

4 feet; ER 1904, 2-by-4 feet; ER 1905, 4-by-4 feet; relatively few artifacts and features and most and ER 1906, 4-by-10 feet). Although few apparent stratification is related to soil formation, artifacts were found associated with the feature, not sediment deposition. In addition, grid points excavators concluded that the concentration of were re-surveyed using an Electronic Distance greenstone cobbles represented structural remains Measurer (EDM). (Kern 1996). The 1996 field strategy featured a more Artifacts recovered from the site area extensive campaign of testing that involved were domestic in nature with the refined expanding the investigated area in all directions earthenware ceramics dating between c. 1765 and (Figure 6). Test unit dimensions were 1820 (Appendix 1). Most of the assemblage standardized to 2.5-by-2.5 feet; large areas were came from the artifact midden west of the tulip exposed by excavating blocks of 2.5-by-2.5 feet poplar tree. test units. This unit size was selected to facilitate comparison with previously excavated areas that The 1996 Field Season measured two, five and ten feet square. The 1996 field season was conducted under the Where double units were excavated, the direction of Fraser Neiman; again, the site was the orientation (north-south or east-west) of the two- focus of the Monticello/University of Virginia unit block was variously selected. Although test Archaeological Field School (Figure 7). units continued to be excavated stratigraphically, Excavators returned to the two previously each layer was excavated in arbitrary 0.25-foot identified areas of cultural activity, the midden increments to maximize vertical control. and the cobble feature. They investigated the Arbitrary levels within layers were numbered northwest project area as well (grid coordinates sequentially in the order they were encountered N20-100, E0-60), where soil chemical mapping (i.e., ERs 1921-A1, 1921-A2, 1921-A3). conducted in the fall of 1995 revealed elevated Changes in field documentation included levels of potassium. Field methods were modified an updated, comprehensive Context Record form. to maximize the data recovery potential of an These forms were designed to prompt excavators ephemeral site such as this one, where there are for specific details concerning elevation,

12 Figure 7. Field school students excavating during the 1996 season. stratigraphic relationships, excavation method, Despite the 25-percent slope of the sediment description, artifact content, and general site area, the land surface remained interpretation. A separate Context Record sheet relatively uneroded and intact. Sediments were was filled out for each context within a test unit. surprisingly stable, with little or no evidence of Finally, excavators drew two adjacent profiles erosion. The top 0.1-0.2 feet of the A horizon within each test unit. The results of the 1996 were relatively artifact free, a result of in-situ soil investigations follow. development since the abandonment of the site. Below this zone, artifacts were distributed Soils and Sediments throughout the A horizon, down to the top of the Soil profiles across the site area were relatively B horizon, presumably a result of bioturbation uniform. Sediments in Unit 1919 were typical of and cycles of drying and crack development in the the site area, where an A horizon composed of clay-rich soil profile. very dusky red (2.5YR 2.5/4) silty clay loam that overlay a B horizon composed of dark red (2.5YR Architectural Features 4/6) clay (Figure 8). Within and around the Architectural features identified at the Hemings relatively level house area, sediments included an Site consisted of the scattered remains of a hearth A horizon that ranged from a very dusky red and one small post hole. Boyer in 1981 described, (2.5YR 2.5/3) to a dark red (2.5YR 4/6) clay but did not identify, the hearth when he noted a loam, and the B horizon was a dark red (2.5YR small concentration of bricks and stones at the 3/6) clay. The A horizon, or topsoil, was base of the tulip poplar tree (Boyer 1983:5). characterized by root disturbance and Excavation of this concentration revealed hand- bioturbation, and ranged from 0.4-0.6 feet thick in made bricks, including whole bricks and brick the central and eastern portions of the site to 1.3 bats, and local sandstone and greenstone cobbles feet in the westernmost site area. Gravel to spread across an area measuring approximately cobble-sized greenstone and sandstone clasts 7.5-feet square. No sections of intact hearth were common throughout the topsoil, generally remained: the tulip poplar had grown up through comprising 3% of the soil matrix. the center of the feature, dislodging any intact

13 masonry that might have remained (Figure 9). The tree comprised the central 2.5-feet square of the feature area. The majority of the cobbles were sandstone, with lesser amounts of epidote greenstone and, occasionally, chlorite greenstone. Since greenstone weathers more readily than sandstone, it is less frequent on the ground surface (Sherwood 1981). The infrequency of greenstone among the hearth stones suggests that these stones were gathered from the surface rather than drawn from subsurface deposits. The amount of stone and brick suggests that only the hearth and firebox were of masonry construction, and that the chimney stack was wood, chinked and lined with mud. A post hole (1865E) located 10 feet south of the hearth feature supports the hypothesis of a wood-framed chimney. The post hole measured 1.2 feet (north- south) by 0.8 feet (east-west), with depth of 0.4 - 0.6 feet north to south. There was no detectable post mold. A single wrought nail was recovered in the fill, just below the B-horizon surface (Figure 10). The size, depth, and location of the hole--downslope of and centered on the hearth-- suggests that this feature secured a wooden pole that served as a chimney prop. Chimneys constructed with masonry hearths and wooden Figure 8. Typical soil profile for the Elizabeth stacks were a standard component of domestic Hemings site. architecture for slaves as well as for middling- to

Figure 9. Remains of the Elizabeth Hemings hearth.

14 poor free whites. An important element of this building technique was the chimney prop, a pole that could be removed quickly in the event that the wooden stack caught fire, thus allowing the outward-leaning chimney to fall away from the house (Figure 11). Sandstone cobbles found in the vicinity of the hearth might have served as foundation stones for the Hemings house, and to help level it on the 15-degree slope. The placement of several stones, to the east, west and north of the hearth, correspond with the 12-by-14 foot dimensions of Buildings r, s, and t, which were erected at the eastern end of Mulberry Row in 1793 (Gruber 1991). The spatial arrangement of the hearth and chimney prop indicates that Hemings’s house faced the Third Roundabout (Figure 12). This places the fireplace on the south gable end of the structure and the door on the north. No evidence of a wooden floor was detected. Window glass was recovered at the site (see Chapter 4), indicating that Hemings’s windows were glazed.

Architectural Patterns Figure 10. East profile of chimney prop post hole located The foregoing information on the 10 feet south (downhill) of the hearth feature (excavated configuration of Hemings’s house needs to be during the 1995 field season). understood in the context of patterns of change

Figure 11. Tidewater example of dwelling employing chimney props.

15 Hypothetical House Outline

Chimney prop post hole

Figure 12. Conjectural outline of Betty Hemings dwelling based upon archaeological evidence. and variation in slave housing at Monticello and information act. By using them, slaves across the Chesapeake. Recent archaeological bootstrapped community morality and achieved research has shown that for much of the 18th a modicum of security for personal belongings in century, Chesapeake slaves were housed in what a world in which locked furniture was unavailable. archaeologists have referred to as “barracks-style” Subfloor pits were a clever invention by housing (Kelso 1984, McKee 1991). The physical individuals enslaved in the Chesapeake to cope conditions denoted by this term include multiple with the fact that slave owners denied them the individuals, many of whom were unrelated to one ability to choose their residence partners. That another, living together in the same room. The control over residence partners was the key key to understanding the social dynamics behind variable is suggested by the fact that 18th-century this housing situation lies in sub-floor pits. The slave houses in South Carolina lacked subfloor floors of early slave houses in the Chesapeake are pits. There is independent evidence, from usually riddled with multiple sub-floor pits (e.g. documents and archaeology, that slaves in South Kelso1984). These features probably have served Carolina had more control over their living as storage closets for the meager personal arrangements (Neiman 1997). In the Chesapeake, possessions of enslaved residents, including slave houses with large rooms and multiple perhaps weekly food rations provided by their subfloor pits were replaced by single-cell owners. Subfloor pits appear to have served as structures with smaller room sizes, and with one “safe-deposit boxes”. By storing personal or, more often, no subfloor pit, toward the end of belongings in a highly visible pit, enslaved people the 18th century. The change represents the made access to their few possessions public and emergence in the region of more choice for slaves thus socially accountable. Under this hypothesis, over who they lived with, the apparent modal subfloor pits worked like today’s freedom of choice being to live in small family groups

16 (Neiman 1997). The change came to Monticello at about this time. Archaeology has revealed in detail the plans of two slave houses on Mulberry Row whose construction dates to the 1770's. A slave house that Jefferson described as a “Negro Quarter” had two rooms, each about 17-feet square, with two subfloor pits under each one. Building o, had a single room of about the same area, and again there were two subfloor pits beneath it. In contrast, slave houses built in the 1790's on Mulberry Row fit the later Chesapeake pattern. For example, Buildings r, s, and t, constructed in 1793, were single-cell structures measuring a scant 12 by 14 feet. Two of them had a single subfloor pit (Gruber 1991, Kelso Figure 13. Cobble scatter possibly associated with field 1997). Excavators explained the lack of a sub- clearing. floor pit under Building r on grading for a parking lot constructed in the 1930's. Slave domestic spaces built on Mulberry Stewart’s house, like Hemings’s was a log Row during the first decade of the 19th century building, seated on a dry-laid stone foundation. seem to have lacked subfloor pits entirely, e.g. the However, when initially constructed around 1800, cook’s room in the South Terrace and the Stone the house was much larger, measuring roughly 20 House (Kelso 1997). The pattern of change by 24 feet in plan. An addition in 1803 increased indicates that at least some Monticello slaves its length to 36 feet. The completed building achieved marginally greater autonomy in their contained two rooms, both heated by end living conditions as the 18th century drew to a chimneys of wood and mud, built on stone close. hearths. A wood-lined half basement, measuring The configuration of Hemings’s house 10 by 12 feet square, was located beneath the fits this larger pattern. However, one possible larger of the two rooms (Heath 1991, 1999). anomaly does emerge. Unlike Building s and t, Stewart’s house had more than four times which had been built only a few years before, the floor area than Hemings’s did. The difference Hemings’s house lacked a subfloor pit. Several is not explained by the fact that Stewart had a wife hypotheses might account for the difference. The and 5 children living with him, while Hemings did spatial isolation of Hemings’s house might have not. There are no slave domestic structures on offered greater security, relative to houses located Mulberry Row approaching the size of Stewart’s along densely populated Mulberry Row. house, yet we know slave families were housed Alternatively, her house might have been fitted there. Even after the transition to family-based with a lock. In either case, assuming the safe- housing at Monticello, enslaved families lived at deposit hypothesis is itself correct, the lack of a densities from 2 to 4 times greater than free subfloor pit indicates that Hemings had greater workers. The cause is not hard to pinpoint. Free control over who had access to the interior of her workers like William Stewart could choose to go house than did the residents of Building s and t. elsewhere if their expectations concerning Additional perspective on Hemings’s housing were not met. house and slave housing at Monticello can be had The second salient difference between from a comparison with the contemporary house Stewart’s and Hemings’s accommodations lies in of William Stewart, the free white blacksmith. The Stewart’s large wood lined-cellar. Again freedom Monticello archaeologists excavated the figures in the explanation. Enslavement severely Stewart/Watkins site in 1989-1990, under the constrained its victims ability to acquire food in direction of Barbara Heath. They determined that sufficient bulk to require a large cellar for storage.

17 Regular provisioning of staples to slaves lessened Landscape Analysis the payoff to attempting bulk acquisition. Free Microtopography workmen, on the other hand, had access to cash Concurrent with field excavations, the and were not provisioned with staples. They thus Department of Archaeology sought to clarify had both the means and the motive to acquire outstanding questions regarding the spatial food in sufficient bulk to require a large subfloor relationship between the Hemings site and Third storage space. Roundabout. Jefferson’s plats placed Hemings’s dwelling just south of the Third Roundabout. In Cobble Scatter 1977, Kurt Glockner surveyed various landscape The other significant feature on the Hemings Site features on Monticello mountain using the was a large concentration of sandstone and bearings and distances written on Jefferson’s greenstone cobbles southeast of the house site, plats. However, all the features and most of the identified during the 1995 season. Measuring 12 artifacts thought to represent the Hemings site feet (north-south) by 23 feet (east-west), the fell north of Glockner’s resulting placement of the stones lay generally two and three deep (Figure Third Roundabout, which according to him ran 13). The scatter was composed primarily of through point C-74, along the North-0 grid line sandstone. As with the hearth, the predominance or baseline of Kern’s grid (see above). Adding to of sandstone cobbles suggests that they were the puzzle was the fact that Glockner’s survey collected from the adjacent ground surface. placed the roadbed in a location where no Greenstone cobbles are only found in high physical evidence of a road or path existed. frequency further down the soil profile Because of this discrepancy between the (Sherwood 1981). Soil horizon development 1977 survey results and both the physical and around the stones suggests that the feature was historical evidence, the Department re-surveyed old enough to have been contemporary with the the site area. A total station was used to take Hemings house. elevations on roughly 20-foot intervals on the grid The obvious linear configuration of the established by Kern, over an area measuring 250 cobble scatter’s north edge and the superficial feet (north-south) by 300 feet (east-west). A similarity with stone floors excavated in several of digital elevation model (DEM) was then the Mulberry Row structures lead to an initial computed from the scattered elevations. An interpretation of this feature as architectural elevation was interpolated for every point on a 1- (Kern 1996). However, the scarcity of associated foot grid, using radial basis functions (Golden artifacts and the absence of any discernable hearth Software, Inc. 1999:104). The resulting DEM remains argue against this idea, as does the ragged, offers a useful portrait the site’s microtopography circular configuration of three of its sides. (Figure 14). In addition, the DEM makes it Rather, its straight northern edge suggests the possible to compute various derivatives of the presence of a barrier there, such as a fence or field microtopography, which further clarify the edge. The feature extends downslope, with the relationships among the microtopography, center of the lower or southern edge extending Hemings’s house, the cobble scatter, and the furthest south. This overall configuration seems elusive Third Roundabout. more consistent with a cache of field-cleared Two derivative measures are especially stones, deposited over time against a fence. On important: slope and plan curvature. To construct this hypothesis, the fence stood along the a slope map, the slope at each grid point on the northern edge of the cobble scatter and cobbles DEM is estimated as the change in elevation were thrown against it from the south. Support relative to change in distance in the direction the for this hypothesis, along with a better terrain’s aspect. Aspect is the direction of the understanding of how space around Hemings’s steepest ascent or descent (Figure 15). The house was used is forthcoming from an analysis darker sections of the slope map represent of the site’s terrain. relatively level spaces, while the lighter sections denote steeper areas. The slope map shows that Hemings’s house and its immediate yard area are

18 100

720 715

50 710 705 700 695 Hemings' 0 Hearh 690 685 Cobble Scatter 680 675 -50 670 665 660 655 -100 650 645 Elevation (feet)

-150 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0 25 50 75 100 Feet Figure 14. One-foot contour map of the Elizabeth Hemings Site. located on a 24 to 28 percent slope. To the west Hemings’s house was located just north and the hillside is a bit steeper, with varying terrain to upslope of a relatively more gently sloping area the east. More importantly, this map clearly about 125 feet in diameter whose southern shows a linear patch of more level ground roughly boundary is formed by the Fourth Roundabout. paralleling the North-60 grid line. In contrast, the It is tempting to suggest that the house was roadbed proposed by the Glockner survey, along strategically positioned to help minimize costs of the North-0 grid line, lies along a section of access to the Third Roundabout and to this more uninterrupted slope. Given this evidence, we level patch. Such positioning would have been propose that the linear patch of more level attractive for Hemings because it made for easy ground is the topographic trace of the Third access to a large area over which the costs of Roundabout. Confirmation for this hypothesis is movement, determined by slope, were relatively immediately forthcoming from the fact that the low. remains of Hemings’s house were found south of Further insight into the location of the the linear patch. This is the spatial relationship house and cobble scatter is provided by a plan between roundabout and house documented on curvature map (Figure 16). Plan curvature is the Jefferson’s plats (see Figure 4). Note that the second derivative of aspect. It measures the north side of the Fourth Roundabout, in its amount of curvature in the contour lines on a actively maintained, modern incarnation, is visible contour map. Positive values for plan curvature in the southeast corner of the slope map. indicate areas into which water flow converges, The slope map also reveals that while negative values represent areas from which

19 100

Third Roundabout 0.36 60 0.34 0.32 20 0.3 Hemings' Hearth 0.28

Cobble 0.26 -20 Scatter 0.24 0.22 -60 0.2 0.18 0.16 -100 0.14

Fourth Roundabout 0.12 -140 Percent Slope

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0 25 50 75 100 Feet Figure 15. Percent slope map with superimposed two-foot contour map. water flow diverges. The plan curvature map fact that the cobble scatter is centered in a gully highlights the north-south trending rise on which provides further support for the idea that it is not the house was located and the gullies on either the remains of a building. side of it. We see that the house is precisely centered on a rise, presumably because of the The Third Roundabout drainage advantages of divergent flow. The large In order to test further the hypothesis that the relatively flat area south of the house was also a linear patch on the slope map was the Third well drained area of divergent flow. On the other Roundabout, five contiguous 2.5 by 2.5 feet units hand, the cobble scatter is precisely centered on were excavated across it (Units 1976, 1977, 1991, the eastern gully, an area of convergent flow. 1992, and 2001). The resulting 12.5-foot trench We suggested above that the straight was oriented north-south so as to reveal a profile northern edge of the cobble scatter betrays the of any extant roadbed. It exposed a layer of presence of a fence line against which the cobbles compacted clay (2.5YR 4/6 red clay loam) seven were thrown from the south. It is tempting to feet wide (north-south) sandwiched between suggest that the area from which the cobbles were topsoil (2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown, silty clay loam) cleared was the well drained flat area to and the underlying B horizon (2.5YR 3/6 dark red southwest, and further that this area may have clay) (Figure 17). Unlike the sloping layers of been used by Hemings as a garden. The sediment above and below, the upper surface of evaluation of this idea should receive top priority the clay layer was relatively level; it ranged in in future investigations at the site. In any case, the thickness from 0.1 - 0.9 feet north-south. The

20 100

0.035 0.03 50 0.025 0.02 0.015 0 Hemings' 0.01 Hearth 0.005 Cobble Scatter 0 -0.005 -50 -0.01 -0.015 -0.02 -100 -0.025 -0.03 Plan Curvature -150 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0 25 50 75 100 Feet Figure 16. Plan curvature map of topography surrounding the Elizabeth Hemings site. Green areas denote divergent flow and the yellow a convergent flow.

Figure 17. East profile of test trench excavated across the third roundabout.

21 layer included fine- (6-10 mm) to cobble-sized On the other hand, additional energy will not be (65-250 mm) particles of greenstone and expended to remove to special areas those sandstone that comprised 7-10% of the soil activities that require smaller amounts of space, matrix. This percentage, which is over twice that generate little refuse, or have short durations. of any other area on the site, indicates that at These activities will tend to occur together in the some point an attempt was made to maintain the same general activity area. General activity areas road bed by adding rock to it. The configuration can be expected to be the site of pursuits like the of this layer also suggests that it is fill deposited in preparation of food for immediate consumption, an attempt to create a level roadbed. There can social interaction or sleeping. This argument leads be little doubt that these sediments represent to the expectation that, other things being equal, Jefferson’s Third Roundabout. domestic sites will be partitioned radially, with a general activity area at the site core and special Site Structure activity areas on the periphery. The distance that How big was the activity space around Hemings’s special activities are removed from the domestic house? How was it spatially structured and how core is a function of their interference potential did the structure of activities within it relate to the (Neiman 1993). roundabout, the cobble scatter, and the house itself? Our approach to these questions begins Cost Surface Modeling with a simple model, based on recent How might we identify the spatial scale of these ethnoarchaeological work, of how activities might zones? One way to proceed is to estimate the have been spatially organized at the Hemings site. costs of movement from the domestic core to any We then look to evidence from the spatial spot on the site. Our estimates can be represented distribution of chemical elements and artifacts on as a cost surface, a contour map whose contour the site to evaluate the model. lines indicate the locations of peripheral zones to Over the past two decades, archaeologists which it was equally costly to walk, following a have begun to document ethnographically how least-cost path, in order to pursue a specific humans organize activities in regard to their activity. The location of features like the Third spatial layout on sites (Binford 1983, 1987; Roundabout and the cobble scatter on the cost Hitchcock 1987; O’Connell 1987; O’Connell et al. surface might indicate the maximum extent of an 1991; Schiffer 1987; Wandsnider 1996; Yellen intensively used site core. And this could be 1977). A crucial variable that organizes and further evaluated using evidence from the spatial segregates activities spatially is the extent to which distribution of artifacts and chemical elements they interfere with one another. Interference is across the site. likely when the objects involved in activities take When a site is located on a flat surface, up a large amount of space, or processing them the cost of activity removal from center to generates a large amount of debris, or the activity periphery is a function of linear distance from the itself requires large amounts of uninterrupted core. But when a site is on an irregular, sloping time. Each of these factors, singly or in concert, surface, costs no longer scale linearly with renders simultaneous use of the same space for distance. Movement perpendicular to the other purposes costly in time or effort. Thus, direction or aspect of the slope is easier than there will be a long term benefit to the movement up it. expenditure of additional effort to cover Making this observation analytically travelcosts incurred in the location and pursuit of useful requires estimating the costs of movement, such activities at some distance away from the which can be done with the help of a formula area in which most other activities occur. Thus derived from backpacking: activities with higher interference potential will tend to be conducted in out-of-the-way areas. Costoneway = 1 + 3.2s, if s>0 (1) Prime examples of special activities include bulk 1 + 1.2s, otherwise processing and storage of plant and animals foods and the disposal of bulky or hazardous refuse. where Costoneway is the cost of movement across 1

22 100

Third Roundabout 0.36

50 0.34 0.32 0.3 Hemings' Hearth 0.28 0 Cobble 0.26 Scatter 0.24 0.22 -50 0.2 0.18 0.16 -100 0.14 0.12 Percent Slope -150 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0 25 50 75 100 Feet Figure 18. Cost surface contour map superimposed over percent slope map. The 80-cost unit contour is highlighted to show the intensively-used Hemings site core. unit in a horizontal plane, and s is the slope, given containing the costs of moving back and forth or as vertical change, divided by horizontal change up and down across a grid cell can be estimated (Ericson and Goldstein 1980). from a grid of slopes: The use of this formula to model movement in multiple directions across complex Costbothways = 1 + 4.4s (2) topography come under the heading of anisotropic cost surface modeling. The key word Both the slope and aspect grids are here is anisotropic. It refers to the fact that the computed from the DEM of the study area. cost of movement is a function not only of the Because the costs are anisotropic, estimating the steepness of the slope, but also of the direction at actual costs of movement requires taking into which the slope is attacked. Anisotropy means account the angle at which the grid cell is crossed. that costs vary as the difference between the Basic trigonometry makes it easy to show that the slope’s aspect the direction of travel varies. actual cost of crossing a cell is: Hence anisotropic cost surface analysis requires a

cost grid, which specifies the costs of moving ActualCostbothways = 1 +4.4s|cos(a)| (3) across a grid cell in the study area, and an aspect grid, which specifies the (azimuth) direction in It is possible then to estimate our sought- which the costs of movement are greatest. after cost surface, with the help of Equation 3 and The forgoing formula implies that a grid an algorithm that uses it to trace the least-cost

23 path from a given source point on the DEM to all Spatial Patterns other points.2 Soil and Sediment Chemistry The cost surface that results is shown in One domain in which the radial model of site Figure 18. The lozenge-shape cost contours structure has special archaeological relevance is reflect that fact that the same amount of effort trash disposal. It leads to the expectation that gets one further when one travels along the different kinds of refuse will be deposited in southern-facing slope than up and down it. Both general activity areas and special activity areas. the Third Roundabout and a line paralleling the When individual refuse items have high northern edge of the cobble scatter fall roughly interference potential or when a large amount of along the 80-unit cost contour. This implies a refuse needs to be disposed of at once, trash will more intensively-used site core, in which general be transported greater distances from general- activities were more likely to occur, measuring 90 activity space at the center of the site to the feet (north-south) by 130 feet (east-west). The periphery. The study of spatial variation in the eastern and western edge of this area coincide chemical elements across the site offers a way to with the center of the two gullies identified on the evaluate this expectation. plan curvature map. Archaeologists have discovered that data The size of this area was an important on the abundance of chemical elements in soils part of Hemings’s daily experience. One and sediments can be useful in locating dimension of its significance for her is apparent in archaeological sites and defining different activity the difference between it and the sizes of yard areas within those sites. Researchers have areas associated with Buildings r, s and t on hypothesized that certain chemical elements or Mulberry Row. These 12-by-14 foot structures combinations of elements are indicative of stood 25 feet apart. At their front doors lay specific types of human activities (Cook and Mulberry Row. By 1809, a garden fence stood Heizer 1965). Although American prehistorians about 10 feet behind them. If the cost surface began to use soil chemistry data in the 1950s, analysis is an accurate approximation, then historical archaeologists overlooked the Hemings’s yard space was roughly 10 times the possibilities until the late 1970s. In the size of the yard area associated with the Mulberry Chesapeake, archaeologists first demonstrated the Row structures. potential of soil chemical patterns in the analysis of seventeenth-century sites (Keeler 1978; Pogue 1988). Most archaeological studies focus on a handful of chemical elements, including potassium, phosphorous, calcium, and 2 magnesium. Phosphorous (P) has been used for The algorithm used here is the a long time to identify sites. It reflects a wide VARCOST module in the Idrisi GIS (Clark range of activities because it is present in soft Labs 1998). VARCOST handles an anisotropy animal tissue, excrement, and bone, as well as by powering a cost grid, computed from Equation other organic materials (Cook and Heizer 1965; 2, by a user-specified function of the difference Eidt 1977, 1985). Potassium (K), magnesium angle a. This means that it is impossible for the (Mg), and, to a lesser extent, calcium (Ca) are all algorithm to duplicate Equation 3 precisely. But components of wood ash (Griffith 1980, 1981; it is possible to come very close using the Heidenreich and Konrad 1973, Konrad et al. 1983, following approximation: Middleton and Price 1996, Schuldenrein 1995). Calcium is a major chemical constituent of shell ActualCost .(1 + 4.4s) /|cos (a)| (4). bothways and bone (Cook and Heizer 1965, Middleton and

Price 1996, Schuldenrein 1995). On sites with This approximation is used here. The Pearson masonry, unlike the Hemings Site, elevated Ca correlation between actual costs as given by levels are also likely to be a product of lime in Equation 3 and the approximation in Equation 4 mortar (e.g. Metz et al. 2000). is .998 for 0 < s < 2 and 0 < a < 360 degrees.

24 The 1996 season saw the implementation of a comprehensive soil chemical mapping Element VPI-A&L Wisc.-A&L VPI-Wisc. program. The Department took an initial K 0.8930 0.8270 0.8800 collection of soil chemistry samples during the Ca 0.8290 0.8340 0.8710 Fall of 1995 in an attempt to clarify the location Mg 0.8380 0.8010 0.7220 of the Hemings house and any associated B 0.7710 features. Excavators collected 104 samples, taken Zn 0.7427 0.5074 0.5693 every 20 feet across an area measuring 140 feet Mn 0.4610 0.6240 0.4830 (north-south) by 300 feet (east-west). An Cu 0.4690 additional 41 samples were taken from the Fe 0.6960 0.2280 0.4030 profiles of test units. All of the soil samples were Al 0.1420 -0.0740 0.6850 acquired 0.3 feet below modern grade. The 145 Na 0.2100 soil samples were analyzed at Virginia Polytechnic P 0.1017 0.0691 0.0646 Institute’s Soil Testing and Plant Analysis Laboratory in Blacksburg, Virginia. Table 1. Correlations (Spearman’s r) between the ranks of A second more intensive sampling element concentrations tested at three independent soil labs campaign was initiated after the remains of the (ordered from highest correlation to lowest). hearth were identified during the 1996 field season. Initially, samples were taken every ten which assays by the different labs, using different feet within a 60-foot square centering on the extractions methods and instrumentation, agree southwest corner of the suspected hearth, for each element. Agreement across labs for a resulting in 49 samples. An additional 25 samples given element indicates that the labs’ measures are were collected from north-south and east-west reliable, that is each lab offers reasonable transects, centered on the 60-foot square block. estimates of the same underlying quantity. This is These samples were also taken 0.3 feet below a necessary condition for valid inferences about modern grade. For comparative purposes, the the meaning of that element’s spatial pattern. The samples were sent to the Plant Analysis second issue is the extent to which the spatial Laboratory in Blacksburg (VPI), the University of patterns exhibited by different elements correlate Wisconsin at Madison’s Archaeological Chemistry with one another across different spatial scales. Laboratory and to A&L Eastern Agricultural Consistency across spatial scales in the pattern of Laboratories, Inc. (A&L) in Richmond, Virginia. correlations among elements would also suggest A final sampling campaign was that the spatial patterns exhibited by various undertaken after excavations at the site were elements are reliable. completed. An Oakfield corer was used to collect The first issue, agreement across labs, 143 soil samples at 2.5 foot intervals from was addressed using the 10-foot interval samples, unexcavated ground within a 40 foot (north- that were analyzed by all three labs. Each lab south) by 32.5 foot (east-west) area surrounding analyzed a slightly different suite of elements. the hearth feature. Fourteen additional samples Eight elements (Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, P and were obtained from sediments within the hearth Zn) were common to all three labs. Two (B and and from excavated contexts 0.3 feet below Cu ) were common to A&L and VPI alone, while modern grade. Unfortunately the area southwest one element (Na) was common to A&L and of the hearth could not be sampled in this fashion Wisconsin. Correlation coefficients were because it had been excavated in 10-foot quadrat computed to measure the similarity among rank- units in 1995. Due to the small bore diameter of orders of element assays by pairs of labs. We the Oakfield corer, samples were sent only to one used ranks, and not the original values, to lab: The University of Wisconsin’s Archaeological minimize the effects of outliers on the results. Chemistry Laboratory. Table 1 shows that there is reasonably strong The extensive soil chemistry sampling agreement among the labs for three of the four program offers a unique opportunity to explore elements that have traditionally interested two technical issues. The first is the extent to archaeologists (Ca, K, and Mg), while there are

25 moderate to zero correlations among the rest. ICP/AES (Ankerman and Large n.d.:26). Phosphorus (P) has the lowest For our purposes, the Wisconsin test correlation for all of the elements tested. This is yields useful estimates of P by providing values the result of the unique characteristics for that reflect the anthropogenic processes at work Catoctin formation, Davidson clay loam soils, the on Monticello sites. The Mehlich No. 1 and the chemical properties of phosphorus, and the weak and strong Bray tests are too weak to break element extraction methods employed by the soil much more than a tiny fraction of anthropogenic labs. In the local soils and sediments, most of the P from its chemical bonds. These very different P introduced by decaying plant and animal tissue measures account for the low correlation quickly bonds to mineral silicates. The tightly coefficients in Table 1. As a result, only the bound phosphorus is not easily extracted and Wisconsin results for the 2.5- and 10-foot interval detected. will be used for analysis. The soil testing program at VPI, for The second issue, consistency of example, only attempts to measure the amount correlations among elements at different spatial readily available for new plant growth (water scales, was also addressed using correlation soluble) and does not attempt to detect the total analysis. Three symmetric matrices of correlation P. Soil samples are dried, pulverized and sifted coefficients among log-transformed elements through a 2 millimeter sieve. Four cubic were computed for the 20-foot, 10-foot and 2.5- centimeters are placed in 20 milliliters of Mehlich foot interval samples. The pattern of correlations

No. 1 extractant (0.05N HCl in 0.025N H2SO4). among elements was similar for each of the three The samples are shaken for five minutes, filtered matrices. Typical results are shown in Figure 19. and then analyzed by inductively coupled plasma- The plot captures about 60% of the total variation atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP/AES). for the 10-foot interval sample, as analyzed by the The acid extraction method employed at Wisconsin Lab. Note the acute angles between the Wisconsin lab is much more aggressive and the vectors representing three of the four the resulting readings reflect a higher proportion elements that have traditionally interested of the total amount of P in the sample. At archaeologists: calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), Wisconsin the sample is dried, pulverized, and and potassium (K). This pattern represents the sifted through a 2 millimeter sieve. 0.2 grams is relatively high positive correlations that were placed in a 1N HCl solution for two weeks at obtained among all three elements, and especially room temperature and then analyzed by between Mg and K, whose vectors display the ICP/AES. Note that the acid concentration, as most acute angles. The positive correlations measured by solution molarity (N), is 20 times among these three elements appear at all three greater that used by VPI. And the extraction time spatial scales and in all three lab results. This is measured in weeks, not minutes. indicates that the spatial distributions of these The A&L lab detects P using two three elements are broadly similar and strengthens different acid solutions. The weak Bray or P1 test confidence in the reliability of the results. The is very similar to VPI’s Mehlich No. 1 test in that vector representing the fourth element of this method determines the amount of readily traditional archaeological interest, phosphorus (P), available phosphorus usable for plant growth. The lies at right angles to the vectors representing the prepared sample is placed in a 0.025M HCl + other three elements, reflecting the near-zero

0.03M NH4F solution for 1 minute and then correlation between P and the other three analyzed by ICP/AES. The strong Bray or P2 test elements. This result shows up in the 2.5-foot extracts the water soluble phosphates interval sample, analyzed by the Wisconsin Lab as (ammonium- and mono-calcium phosphates), well. Again the agreement indicates reliability. weak acid soluble phosphates (di-calcium The positive correlations among Ca, K, phosphates), and a small amount of the active and Mg suggest that there might be a single reserve phosphates (i.e., tri-calcium phosphate). process responsible for the majority of variation Soil samples are placed in a 0.1M HCl + 0.03M in the distributions of all three elements. To

NH4F solution for 1 minute and then analyzed by better characterize that process, we could map the

26 1 P AL MN FE ZN 0.5 TI

BA

NA MG 0 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 K 1 SR CA

-0.5

-1 Figure 19. H-plot summarizing the pattern of correlations among log-transformed element concentrations from the 10-foot interval soil samples, Wisconsin Lab (Baxter 1994). The angle between a pair of vectors is proportional to the correlation between the corresponding elements: vectors forming an acute angle are positively correlated; vectors at right angles are uncorrelated; vectors pointing in opposite directions are negatively correlated. The length of each vector represents how faithfully its pattern of correlations is represented in the plot. Elements represented: calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), barium (Ba), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), phosphorus (P), titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), sodium (Na). three distributions individually and guess about three element distributions. PCA produces, the spatial pattern that they have in common. Or among other things, a numeric score for each we could estimate the common pattern sample location. The score for each location is a statistically and then map it. The latter option is weighted average of the original element preferable because it relies less on interpretive concentrations. The weights are computed so whim. It has statistical advantages as well. Our that the scores they produce account for the analysis of inter-lab correlations revealed that maximum possible amount of variation in the estimates of element concentration are laden with data. The scores with this variation-maximizing error. Estimating variation shared by several property are called principal component scores. elements is one way to dampen the effects of that There are as many sets of principal component error. Principal components analysis (PCA), is a scores as there are variables in the original data. natural way to estimate the variation shared by the But if the original variables are correlated, then

27 50 PC 1: Ca, K, Mg c 3 2.5 2 a 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 b -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 -50 -2.5 -3 VPI -3.5 -4 50 100 150 200 250 300 Z-score

0 25 50 75 100 Feet Figure 20. Contour map of the spatial pattern held in common in the distributions of Ca, K, and Mg, as estimated by principle component analysis. The shared pattern was estimated from the first principle component extracted from the correlation matrix among the three elements. Triangles represent soil sample locations, taken at 20-foot intervals and from side walls of excavated units. Letters denote areas of high concentration discussed in the text. The element distributions were estimated by the VPI Soils Lab. the first principal component accounts for most The first principal component computed of the variation in the data and summarizes the from the Ca, K, and Mg distributions for the 20- common pattern (Baxter 1994). foot interval sample accounts for 65% of the A final word about methods. In order to variation in the data. Each of the three variables portray spatial patterning in the distribution of contributes in roughly equal amounts to the chemical elements, we have relied on contour component, that is the weights for each element maps. These have been produced by are about equal. The spatial pattern exhibited by interpolating a regular and continuous grid of the scores shows that high concentrations of all element concentrations from the spatially isolated three elements tend to occur some distance from sample locations, and then contouring this grided the house. Concentrations a and b lie outside the surface. The grided values were estimated by cost surface contour that bounds the intensively- Kriging, a statistical method that, under certain used core of the site (Figure 20). Concentration circumstances, yields estimates that have c, located about 20 feet north-northwest of the minimum squared error (Golden Software, Inc. house, falls within the estimated core boundaries. 1999). Kriging, like all surface interpolation Finally note the zone of relatively lower values methods, relies on the existence of spatial northeast of the house, separating concentrations autocorrelation among values at sampled c and b. locations. Sampled locations that are close Similar patterns appear in the 10-foot together have more similar values than locations interval sample analyzed by the Wisconsin lab. that are far part. We tested this assumption for all Here the first principal component accounts for three of our sets of samples (20, 10 and 2.5-foot 74% of the variation in the original distributions intervals), and in each case found the positive of Ca, K, and Mg. Again, the three elements spatial autocorrelation required by the method. contribute about equally to it. The spatial pattern

28 100 PC1 Scores 3.5 Ca, K, Mg 3 2.5 50 2 1.5 1 0.5 e a f b 0 0 -0.5 -1 d -1.5 -2 -50 -2.5 c -3 100 150 200 250 Z-score

100 Phosphorus 320

290

260 50 230

200

170 0 140 a b 110

80

-50 c 50

c 20 100 150 200 Phosphorus parts per million 0 20 40 60 80 Feet Figure 21. Contour maps of the principle component scores for Ca, K, and Mg and of the distribution of P. Triangles represent soil sample locations, taken at 10-foot intervals and from side walls of excavated units. Letters denote areas of high concentrations discussed in the text. The element distributions were estimated by the Wisconsin Lab.

29 in the resulting component scores looks familiar. house (a and b) echo what we have seen on the The highest values appear at some distance from 10-foot series map in the same direction (Figure the house, beyond the edges of the site core as 21, concentrations d and e). estimated by the cost surface and at the opposite In the 2.5-foot interval samples, the ends of the east-west transect (concentrations a distribution of P does share some patterns in and b, Figure 21) and at the southern end of the common with the Ca, K, and Mg principal north-south transect (concentration c ). A third component scores (Figure 22). The high area of high values (d ) north-north west of the concentrations just inside the hypothesized door house and within the estimated core echoes the (a), outside the door to the west (b), and adjacent concentration in the same location on the 20-foot to the hearth (d ) are three examples. The fourth interval map (concentration c, Figure 20). Again, area of high P concentration (c) partially overlaps we see the area of low values northeast of the the Ca, K, and Mg concentration adjacent to the house. The novelty on the 10-foot map is the east wall of the house. The apparent modest appearance of smaller concentrations within the similarity between the P and Ca, K, and Mg site core, about 10 feet and 30 feet west of the distributions is confirmed by a modest but house (e and f ). statistically significant rank correlation value of Unlike the 20-foot interval samples .31 (p < .0001). However, aspects of the contrast analyzed at VPI, the 10-foot interval samples, between the distributions of P and Ca, K, and which were analyzed by the Wisconsin lab, Mg, noted in the 10-foot interval sample, recur yielded reliable values for P (Figure 21). The here. High concentrations of P are closer to the spatial patterns exhibited by P and the first house and they are more spatially clumped, while principle component appear unrelated. The Ca, K, and Mg concentration also occur away appearance is confirmed by a near-zero from the house and the concentration are more correlation between P values and the principle dispersed. component scores (Pearson’s r = -.07, p= .53). What are we to make of these patterns? There is a large concentration of P under and How do they relate to the organization of adjacent to the house, on the west (a) and east (b). activities and space on the site? Much of the This large concentration lies in the same area that large-scale pattern in the distribution of Ca, K, displays low to moderate values for Ca, K and Mg and Mg, visible in the 20-foot and 10-foot interval in both the 20-foot and 10-foot interval samples. samples, is likely a function wood ash deposition. In contrast, as we have seen, large concentrations Two depositional contexts for wood ash may be of Ca, K, and Mg are all considerably farther from distinguished: burning of trees and brush that the house. result from the clearance and maintenance of the The 2.5-foot interval sample provides a site core and ongoing disposal of fireplace ash still higher resolution picture of chemical variation generated in the house. Burning trees and bush is in the immediate vicinity of the house. Several clearly an activity with large interference potential, differences in spatial patterning appear at this one that we should expect to occur in a special- more fine-grained spatial scale. First, the strength activity area on the site periphery. Disposal of of the correlations among Ca, K, and Mg large quantities of ash, likely to contain live coals increases. As a result, the first principal from the periodic cleaning of a continuously used component now accounts for 86% on the fireplace, is another such activity. Hence, under variation in these three elements. Second, we the radial model of site structure, the observed begin to see small concentrations of the three concentrations of Ca, K, and Mg at the site elements under and immediately adjacent to the periphery are to be anticipated and may be used as house (Figure 22). Two of these appear to be corroboration for the division of the site into associated with the hearth (e and f ). A third (c) is general and special activity areas based on the cost located just inside the presumed location of a surface. door in the north wall of the house. A fourth What then are we to make of the smaller along the eastern wall (d ) is a bit more enigmatic. concentrations of Ca, K, and Mg that emerge Two additional concentrations northwest of the within the site core in the 10 and 2.5-foot interval

30 40

PC1 Scores 3.5 a Ca, Mg, K 35 3 2.5

30 2 1.5 b 1 25 c 0.5 0 20 d -0.5 -1 15 e -1.5 -2

10 -2.5 f -3 -3.5 5 -4 -4.5 0 Z-score 140 145 150 155 160 165

40

Phosphorus 900 35 850 800

30 750 700 650 25 600 b 550 20 a c 500 450

15 400 350

10 300 250 d 200 5 150 100 0 Phosphorus parts 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 per million

0 5 10 15 20 Feet Figure 22. Contour maps of the principle component scores for Ca, K, and Mg and of the distribution of P. Triangles represent soil sample locations, taken at 2.5-foot intervals. Letters denote areas of high concentration discussed in the text. The element distributions were estimated by the Wisconsin Lab. No chemical samples were taken from the blank area in the southwest corner when it was excavated in 1995.

31 100

6.08 Third Roundabout 5.58

50 5.08 4.58 4.08 3.58 3.08 0 2.58 2.08 1.58 1.08 -50 0.58 0.08 Total Artifact Density 50 100 150 200 250 300 (per square foot)

0 25 50 75 100 Feet Figure 23. Total artifact distribution map for all excavated test units at the Elizabeth Hemings site.

samples. These may be the result of the to the house, within the general-activity area of occasional expedient deposition of fireplace ash the site core. This would explain why P closer to the house. The hypothesis that fireplace concentrations tend to occur closer to the house ash deposition plays a more important role in than do Ca, K, and Mg. If this is correct, then the spatial a patterning at smaller scales receives high concentrations of P along the northern independent support from the increasing strength interior wall of the house (Figure 21, of among-element correlations in the 10- and 2.5- concentrations a and c), might represent zones of foot samples. If some bone and soft-tissue waste food preparation, situated to take advantage of were being cycled through the fireplace, we would light at an open door. A final aspect of the expect increased levels of Ca and P in fireplace distribution of Ca, K and Mg is worthy of note. ash and increased correlations of K and Mg with We have seen that in the 20, 10 and 2.5-foot Ca and of all three elements with P as a result of samples, the area north-northeast of the house ash disposal. This is the pattern that we see. has consistently low levels of Ca, K, and Mg. However, we have also seen that the This may point to the location and orientation of distribution of P is quite different from the a path, that was kept clear of debris, running from distribution of Ca, K, and Mg, even in the 2.5- the front of the house to the Third Roundabout. foot interval sample. This indicates that most P There is clearly unexplained variation in deposition occurred independently of ash the distribution of chemical elements across the dumping. In addition, the low correlation site. Some of the residual variation is probably between P and Ca indicates there are more caused by spatial inhomogeneity in the chemical important sources of P on the site than bone. A composition of the greenstone parent material on likely context of the deposition of P is therefore which the soil across the site has weathered. soft tissue and liquid deposited in the course of However, major features of the distribution of the meal preparation and food waste disposal after four elements discussed here fit comfortably with meals. The small amount of refuse involved in the radial model of site structure, and the division any one depositional episode makes for lower of the site into general and special activity zones interference potential and thus deposition closer based on the cost surface analysis. The fit

32 40

30 6.58

6.08 20 5.58

5.08 10 4.58

4.08 0 3.58

3.08 -10 2.58

2.08 -20 1.58

1.08 -30 0.58

0.08 -40 Total Artifacts Density (per square foot) -50 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

0 10 20 30 40 Feet Figure 24. Total artifact density contour map for test squares around the Elizabeth Hemings house site. supports the primarily anthropogenic origin of of the artifacts mapped here are nails and these distributions. ceramics (see Appendix 1 for complete artifact inventory). Once broken or disused, most of Artifact Distributions these artifacts would have minimal interference Additional insight into the use of space inside and potential, and their deposition within the site core outside the general-activity core of the Hemings is not unexpected. As we shall see, however, Site can be had from the study of the spatial there are informative exceptions to this distribution of artifacts that were recovered in generalization. As Figure 23 makes plain, quarter-inch mesh screen from the excavated artifacts were on occasion discarded outside the quadrats. Again we use contour maps estimated site core. Two low density concentrations, due with the Kriging interpolation method to portray east and west of the house, fall in roughly the the spatial patterns. A map of the distribution of same spots as the large concentrations of Ca, K, all artifacts combined clearly shows that the great and Mg discussed in the previous section. Their majority of artifacts were dumped to the south or spatial coincidence supports the idea that, like the behind the Hemings structure, but within the artifacts, at least some of the chemicals were general activity-core (Figure 23)3. The majority transported from the house to the site periphery. Within the site core, artifacts are concentrated in two areas (Figure 24). The first 3 is a large concentration, about 15 feet in diameter, Due to various quadrat sizes, all that lies behind the house, just off its southwest distribution maps reflect artifact density instead of artifact counts. The 2.5 foot square unit is the median quadrat size and the artifact density of 0.08 (minimum plotted density) represents an artifact count of 0.5 for a unit of this size.

33 corner. Most of the artifacts in this concentration that they were used preferentially in the were probably broken in the house and then construction of the chimney, perhaps in nailing transported to this location in the yard. The the laths over which mud was plastered. This southern edge of this yard midden coincides with would mean that the nail concentrations beneath the southern boundary of the yard as predicted by the house are derived from its destruction, not the cost surface analysis described above. The from ongoing nail disposal during the occupation. second area of artifact concentration partially falls The significance of the wrought construction nail within the suspected house boundaries, north of concentration under the north west corner of the the hearth. Smaller in area and less dense than house is not apparent. Finally, it is worth the yard midden, this scatter is roughly 10 feet emphasizing that the biggest nail concentration across. Unlike the yard midden, the smaller occurs not where the building once stood, but concentration may largely be comprised of where the bulk of refuse generated during the artifacts generated during the destruction of the course of the occupation was discarded. house, not deposition associated with its ongoing Ceramics are the other major constituent occupation. of the yard midden. Examination of the spatial Additional insight into the processes distribution of pearlware and creamware reveals responsible for artifact deposition can be had by some startling differences (Figure 27). The considering variation in the spatial distributions of pearlware distribution resembles the various nail different classes of nails and ceramics. We begin distributions: the biggest concentration of with nails. Both hand-made wrought nails and pearlware occurs off the southwest corner of the machine-made cut nails occur on the site, with the house. However, the distribution of creamware is former outnumbering the latter. The occurrence dramatically different. The bulk of the creamware of both nail types means that during the concentration lies further from the site core as occupation of the site cut nails had begun to estimated by the cost surface. What might replace wrought nails, at least for some purposes. account for the difference? Given the These two nail types have slightly different spatial documented differences in manufacturing dates distributions (Figure 25). In both cases, we find for the two wares, 1762-1820 for creamware and a concentration to the west of the house. 1780-1820 for pearlware, it might be suggested However, the locations of concentrations closer that early in the occupation trash was transported to the house differ. There are two modest cut-nail farther from the house for deposition than later in concentrations associated with the hearth – one the occupation. But it is not clear why this might just to north, under the house, and the other just be. to the south. In contrast, wrought nails cluster A better explanation relates to the radial under the northwest corner of the house. This model of site structure and the differences in the difference could register temporal differences in interference potential of sherds from vessels in locations of nail disposal. On the other hand, it creamware and pearlware on the Hemings Site. might also reflect different functional roles for As we will see in the next chapter, vessel shapes wrought and cut nails. We can choose between are very differently distributed across the two these alternatives by further dividing wrought ceramic ware types. Creamware vessels are nearly nails into two classes: construction nails greater exclusively hollow forms like tea bowls and than 2 inches long and finishing nails less than or saucers. The latter were deep and bowl-like in the equal to 2 inches long (Figure 26). The finishing 18th and early 19th centuries. The majority of nail distribution is nearly identical to the cut nail pearlware vessels are flat forms: plates and distribution, with its signature concentration just platters. Pearlware sherds therefore could be north and south of the hearth. This suggests that relied upon to lie flat on the ground, while the cut nails and wrought finishing nails were put to curved creamware sherds would protrude. similar uses, which differed from the uses to Because of their greater interference potential, which construction nails were put. The discarded creamware shreds were transported past association between cut and wrought finishing the edge of the site core for discard. Examination nails and the hearth is compatible with the idea of the distribution of Chinese porcelain across

34 40 Wrought Nails 3.58 3.33 3.08 20 2.83 2.58 2.33 0 2.08 1.83 1.58 1.33 -20 1.08 0.83 0.58 -40 0.33 0.08

100 120 140 160 180 Wrought Nail Density (per square foot)

40 Cut Nails 1.43

1.28 20 1.13

0.98 0 0.83

0.68

-20 0.53

0.38

-40 0.23

0.08 100 120 140 160 180 Cut Nails Density 0 10 20 30 40 (per square foot) Feet Figure 25. Distribution of wrought nails (top) and cut nails (bottom) at the Elizabeth Hemings site.

35 40

Construction Nails (>2 in.) 1.58

1.43 20 1.28

1.13

0 0.98

0.83

0.68 -20 0.53

0.38

-40 0.23

0.08 100 120 140 160 180 Construction Nail Density (per square foot)

40 Finishing Nails (<2 in.) 1.88

1.73

20 1.58

1.43

1.28

0 1.13

0.98

0.83 -20 0.68

0.53

0.38 -40 0.23

0.08 100 120 140 160 180 Finishing Nail Density (per square foot) 0 10 20 30 40 Feet Figure 26. Distribution of construction nails (top) and finishing nails (bottom) at the Elizabeth Hemings site.

36 40 Pearlware 2.33 2.18 2.03 20 1.88 1.73 1.58 0 1.43 1.28 1.13 0.98 -20 0.83 0.68 0.53 -40 0.38 0.23 0.08 100 120 140 160 180 Pearlware Density (per square foot)

40 Creamware 0.78

20 0.68

0.58

0 0.48

0.38 -20

0.28

0.18 -40

0.08 100 120 140 160 180 Creamware Density 0 10 20 30 40 (per square foot) Feet Figure 27. Distribution of pearlware (top) and creamware (bottom) ceramic sherds. The mostly curved, holloware form creamware sherds are found further away from the house site than the mostly flat pearlware sherds.

37 40 Porcelain

30

0.33 20

10 0.28

0 0.23

-10 0.18

-20 0.13

-30

0.08 -40 Porcelain Density (per square foot) -50 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

0 10 20 30 40 Feet Figure 28. Distribution map for Chinese porcelain sherds. Note the similar distribution to the pearlware sherds.

the site offers an opportunity to evaluate this plants that produced the phytoliths. explanation. If interference potential is the key Seventeen phytolith samples were variable, then the Chinese porcelain distribution collected from the Hemings site. The samples should resemble the pearlware distribution, since came from eight discrete locations: four near the the former, like the latter, were derived nearly cobble scatter, three adjacent to the house, and a exclusively from plates (Figure 28). This single sample on the western extremity of the site. expectation is met. The sample locations were chosen to make it possible to study, at a gross level, spatial variation Phytolith Analysis in vegetation cover across the site, with the house Today the Hemings Site lies in a hardwood forest, and cobble scatter as central features of interest dominated by oak, hickory and poplar. Recent and the western most sample as an “off-site” estimates place the age of much of this stand on control (Figure 29). At seven of the sample the order 100 to 150 years (Tice 1980). Was this locations, two samples were retrieved from the A- the condition of the site when Hemings occupied horizon at depths of 0.3 and 0.5 feet. Two of it 200 years ago? Evidence to address this these locations, both near the house, yielded only question can be had from phytoliths, microscopic a single sample with enough phytoliths for silica bodies that many plant species build in the counting (Samples 270 and 254, see Figure 29). interstices between their cells. Aspects of cellular Three samples were taken from the eighth structure are preserved in phytoliths. To the location at depths of 0.3, 0.5 and 0.75 feet. The extent that structure is taxonomically distinctive, different sample depths were intended to capture phytolith shapes offers clues about the kinds of change over time in phytolith frequency.

38 Figure 29. Phytolith sample locations denoted by their sample number. The phytolith identifications reported grass sub-families are of special analytical interest. here were carried out by Dr. Lisa Kealhofer at the The Pooid grasses are generally found in cool, dry Colonial Williamsburg Phytolith Lab (Kealhofer and open environments. Some members of this 1998). Phytolith samples were processed by sub-family include the European cultigens of standardized techniques outlined by Piperno wheat, oats, and barley. The panicoid grasses (1988), with a few modification in chemicals used thrive in warm, wet environments. Corn (maize) and processing times. Soil processing for the is a panicoid grass. Chloridoid grasses, on the mostly clay Piedmont soils required approximately other hand, tend to be found in hot, dry areas two months before the identification and such as pastures or other open grasslands. Most quantification of the phytoliths commenced. chloridoid species tolerate the extremes of high After removal from the sediment matrix, the temperatures and aridity better than the other phytoliths were mounted on microscope slides grasses. and viewed at 400-times magnification. Most panicoid and chloridoid species use The silica bodies were classified in detail the C-4 photosynthetic pathway and are native to by shape. Groups of shapes were in turn assigned the New World. Most pooid grasses use the C-3 to sub-families of the grasses (Pooideae, Panicoideae, pathway and, in a Virginia context, many are Old Chloridoideae, and Bambusoideae), the arboreal World Natives. Finally, the Bambusoideae are dicots, and to two families of herbaceous plants best suited for wet environments, and are found (Cyperaceae, Compositae). With very few exceptions, predominantly within the tropics and sub-tropics. phytolith analysis is not refined enough to identify Rice is one member of this sub-family (Twiss phytolith shapes to the species or even genus 1992). The distinctive habitat preferences of the levels. However, assignment of phytoliths to one panicoid, chloridoid, and pooid groups raise the of the seven major taxonomic groups mentioned possibility of using phytoliths frequencies in above is still very helpful in interpreting past habitat reconstruction. The correlation with Old micro-environments at Monticello. In this report and New World origins in a Virginia context we describe patterning among these seven major raises the additional possibility that change in taxa, and leave a discussion of variation in grass phytolith frequencies may reflect ecological phytolith shape classes for a future occasion. The replacement of native by European grasses.

39 Grass Sub- Commonly Known Modern Environment Family Members Frequency Pooideae wheat, barley, oats 40% dry, cool, open Panicoideae corn (maize) 30% warm, wet Chloridoideae 15% hot, dry Bambusoideae rice 5% wet Table 2. Relative frequencies of grass sub-families expressed in percent of species in total grass flora. Data extrapolated from frequency maps.

Recent research into the modern 1999, and see below). distribution of these sub-families of grasses show A simple approach to analyzing the that within Virginia, the Pooid grasses comprise, phytolith data is to compare variation among on average, forty percent of the total grass samples in the relative frequency of pairs of species. Panicoid grasses make up thirty percent, phytolith taxa, where the taxon pairs have been the Chloridoids approximately fifteen percent, chosen to emphasize the habitat and ecological and the Bambusoids another five percent (Table correlates outlined above. Consider first 2) (Twiss 1992). Comparing these data to the stratigraphic trends, as measured by phytolith Hemings phytolith samples presents many totals at the .3 and .5-foot depths, summed across problems. First, the frequencies listed in Table 2 all sample locations (Table 3). There is a are for the entire state of Virginia, and it is not statistically significant decrease in the C4 Index, known how much the Piedmont region in general, computed as C4/(C4+C3), 45% in the .5-foot and Monticello specifically, deviates from the levels to 41 % in the .3-foot levels. This is driven norm. Second, the frequencies reflect the number by a decrease in the chloridoid grasses, relative to of grass species within each taxon, and not the the pooids. In addition, the Panicoid Index number of individual plants, or the amount of (panicoid/(panicoid+pooid)) decreases slightly phytoliths that each plant generates. No work has from 24% to 22%. A negative correlation determined the relationship between species between the arboreal index and the C4 index is numbers and the number of phytoliths they what we might expect, if the local ecology were produce. Finally, with the introduction of many left to its own devices: fewer trees should exotic plants over the last two centuries, the encourage the proliferation of heat and drought- modern frequencies are most likely not applicable tolerant C4 grasses. As we have seen, however, to the past. Recent analysis, in fact, raises the the temporal trend at the site is the reverse: fewer possibility that there was a general replacement of trees are accompanied by decreases in C4 grasses. native panicoid grasses by exotic pooids during This supports the idea that C3 grasses increased Jefferson’s lifetime (Metz et. al. 2000; Sullivan in frequency over time at Monticello and that the

Level C4 Index Panicoid Chloridoid Arboreal Herbaceous Index Index Index Index .30 feet 0.41 0.22 0.28 0.25 0.10 .50 feet 0.45 0.24 0.33 0.32 0.02 .75 feet 0.48 0.37 0.25 0.23 0.02

Table 3. Variation in relative frequencies of phytolith taxa by depth. Note that there is a single sediment sample from the .75-foot level, while the other levels have 6 samples each. The availability of only a single sample may explain apparently anomalous values for the .75-foot level.

40 increase was helped along by human introduction pooids, drives this contrast. Note that the and manipulation. Arboreal Index displays precisely the opposite In addition to the shift in grass species at pattern, with significantly higher frequencies of the site, there was also a change in tree cover. The tree phytoliths in the samples close to the house. Arboreal Index (arboreal/(arboreal+grass)) The logical inference is that the area adjacent to decreases significantly over time at the site, going the house had a higher density of trees than did from 32% in the .5-foot samples to 25% in the .3- the areas further away, which were dominated by foot samples. This is further supported by a grasses adapted to hot and dry conditions. This parallel increase from 2% to 10% in the pattern of spatial variation matches the ecological Herbaceous Index (herbaceous/ expectation of the a negative correlation between (herbaceous+arboreal)). As the tree cover was the arboreal index and the C4 index. Note that the removed, shrubs increased. area with higher tree density corresponds to the How did the timing of this change relate site core, as defined by the cost surface analysis. to the Hemings occupation? The .3-foot The preservation of trees adjacent to Hemings’s phytolith samples came from a zone just below house would have offered the advantages of the A-horizon that had developed since the shade. abandonment of the site. Hence they reflect, in a So far our discussion has highlighted general way, conditions at the site when it was gross trends in phytolith frequency in time and occupied. The differences between the upper space. It was worth noting that depth and sample samples and the lower samples taken at .5 feet location, taken one at a time or together, do not represents the general direction of change over fully explain variation in phytolith frequency time. It is likely that the lower samples contain among the individual samples. One symptom of phytoliths that were initially deposited when the this unexplained variation is the fact that the site was occupied and the upper samples contain differences between the .3 and .5-foot phytolith phytoliths deposited after the site was abandoned. samples from a given location to not necessarily This movement down the stratigraphic column is match the depth trend for the entire site. an expected consequence of illuviation and Statistical modeling of phytolith frequency bioturbation. The direction of change leading up variation using multinomial logistic regression to the Hemings occupation is clear and indicates reveals that, for the most part, these departures that when Hemings lived at the site, it was not cannot be explained as sampling error. There are forested as it is today. several possible explanations. As we have seen, it The phytolith sampling campaign offers is evident that there is considerable movement of a glimpse of spatial variation at the site as well phytoliths in the actively weathering soil horizon (Table 4). The predominance of chloridoid on the site. Illuviation and bioturbation guarantee grasses in all the samples (see below) suggests that that the phytolith assemblages from a given depth much of the spatial variation monitored dates to are massively time-averaged. If movement rates a time when the site was open. The C4 Index is vary among sample locations, and they almost greater in the samples distant from the Hemings certainly do, then phytolith samples from the house. Statistically significant variation in both same depth will sample different periods of time. chloridoid and panicoid grasses, relative to A second possibility is that the phytolith counts

Location C4 Index Panicoid Chloridoid Arboreal Herbaceous Index Index Index Index Cobbles 0.44 0.26 0.30 0.26 0.06 House 0.34 0.16 0.24 0.36 0.06 "Off Site" 0.52 0.30 0.40 0.25 0.02

Table 4. Variation in relative frequencies of phytolith taxa by location.

41 may not be statistically independent of one implications of the Hemings phytolith another, as is assumed in the binomial and assemblages can be had by comparing them to multinomial sampling models that are the basis phytolith samples from elsewhere at Monticello. for statistical evaluation. In other words, the We chose scatter plots as the most effective presence of one tree phytolith in a sample may means of doing this. In order to enhance our make the presence of another one more likely. ability to see patterns in these data, we used log- This kind of statistical “contagion” in counts of ratio transformations (Aitcheson 1982). Logratio individual taxa would result from the fact that analogs of the various indices used above were phytoliths enter the archaeological record in computed by adding 0.5 to all counts, dividing clumps (e.g. a leaf) and not one at a time. It is one count by its companion, and transforming to likely that both these factors explain idiosyncratic natural logs before plotting. These steps reduce sample variation at the Hemings site. Clearly the the distorting effects of outlier values and zero issue of phytolith taphonomy in pedogenic counts, and improve symmetry of the marginal contexts requires further exploration. The kind distributions As an aid in reading the graphs, of fine-grained vertical sampling (e.g. at .1-foot recall that the log of 1 is 0. Hence samples with intervals down a soil horizon) required to clarify negative log ratio of 1 have equal frequencies of this issue is a high priority for future research. the two phytolith taxa used in the ratio. Additional light on the environmental Consider first the plot of C3/C4 and

3

2 TerraceFill N.Tri. N.Tri. 1 S6 Hem Hem Hem Hem E.Tri. 0 Hem Hem Hem Hem W.Tri. Hem SS Hem WPS WPS Hem SS ln(C4/C3) WPS SS OrchardSS S6 SS Hem S6 TerraceFill Hem SSS6 -1 Hem S6 S6 SS S.Tri. W.Tri. Garden Hem Garden SS SS SS -2 SS WPS S.Tri.

-3 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 ln(Arboreal/Grass) Figure 30. Plot of logratios for C3 vs. C4 grass phytoliths and arboreal vs. grass phytoliths. The Hemings Site samples are denoted by “Hem”. Samples from other locations at Monticello are shown for comparative purposes. Terrace Fill: samples from soil horizons buried by the construction of Jefferson’s garden terrace in 1809; N, S, E, and W Tti: samples from Jefferson’s planting beds in the tops of the north, south, east and west corner triangles of Monticello Mansion; Garden and Orchard: modern reference samples from currently cultivated beds in the vegetable garden and from the surface of the South Orchard; SS: samples from sediment eroded into the South Spring drainage after 1830, but before 1900.

42 0 Hem Hem HemHem TerraceFill Hem Hem Hem Hem Hem TerraceFill -1 HemHem Orchard Hem Hem WPS Hem SS S6 WPS W.Tri.SS TerraceFill -2 WPSS6 Garden SS N.Tri. W.Tri.Hem S6SS E.Tri. SS SSWPS WPS -3 Orchard S6 N.Tri. S6 Garden SS SS SS -4 S6 S.Tri. E.Tri.

ln(Chloridoid/Pooid) -5 SS SS S.Tri. -6

-7 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ln(Panicoid/Pooid)

Figure 31. Logratio plots for chloridoid vs. pooid and panicoid vs. pooid grasses. Labels are the same as in Figure 30.

Arboreal/Grass ratios (Figure 30). The have never been reforested since they were predominance of negative values in the y-axis initially cleared in the 18th century to have lower indicates that nearly all the Monticello samples are arboreal ratios than Hemings. Two such areas dominated by C3 or pooid grasses. However is can be identified. The first is the modern orchard, its clear that nearly all the Hemings samples are which has been in grass from Jefferson’s time richer in C4 grasses than nearly all other samples. until today. The second is the fill beneath the The most important exception is three samples vegetable garden terrace, which represents an area from the fill that comprises the vegetable garden cleared by Jefferson in the 18th century and then terrace, completed in 1809. The terrace fill is sealed in 1809. The Orchard samples are a time- derived from topsoil that covered an earlier averaged mixture of two centuries of grass cover vegetable garden in the same location. The and the pre-Jefferson forest. The garden terrace historically documented cultivation of corn in this samples represent a similar mixture, but with only earlier vegetable garden is a partial explanation for several decades of grass cover before begin sealed. the elevated C4 ratios. If the terrace C4 ratios are It makes sense then that the mean arboreal ratio a typical signature for sustained maize cultivation for the orchard samples (-2.19) is lower than the in a garden context, then the sampled locations mean for the garden terrace (-1.4), which is in on the Hemings site never saw this activity. turn lower than the mean for the Hemings site (- Variation among the sites in the arboreal .99). ratio lends support to our earlier conclusion that The logratio plot for Chloridoid/Pooid most of the sampled locations at the Hemings site and Panicoid/Pooid grasses further increases our were denuded of trees at the time of the understanding of the Hemings site assemblages occupation and later reforested. If this is correct, (Figure 31). The Hemings samples have highest then we can expect areas on the mountain that chloridoid ratios, matched only by the garden

43 terrace and one of the modern orchard samples. Both the latter areas have southern exposures and were denuded of tree cover, confirming that a similar situation once existed at the Hemings site. The cause of the extraordinarily high C4/C3 ratio values in the garden terrace samples is now evident: the superabundance of panicoid grasses, the subfamily to which maize belongs. The pattern further weighs against the cultivation of maize in the sampled locations of the Hemings site.

44 one white saltglazed stoneware, decorated with a 4. Artifacts “debased” scratch blue design, each represented Ceramics 3.03% of the assemblage. A pearlware plate The artifact assemblage recovered from the fragment, whose evenly scalloped, straight-lined Elizabeth Hemings site was relatively small, not shell edge dates from after the time of Hemings’s surprising given that the dwelling was inhabited 1807 death (c.1810-30), was not included in the for only about a decade and probably by a single vessel count. Similarly, a Rockingham jar rim individual. Recovered sherds point to over thirty dating post-1830 was not included, as it clearly ceramic vessels, however, and these were almost postdates Hemings’s occupation of the site. Both exclusively creamware, pearlware, and Chinese of these vessels were excluded from further porcelain. A half dozen upholstery tacks, two analysis. buttons, a woman’s brass shoe buckle, and a slate Aside from the preponderance of pencil add to the archaeological inventory of pearlware, the vessel count revealed some household goods. Aside from a small amount of correspondence between ware type and vessel table and bottle glass, the remainder of the form: pearlware and Chinese porcelain vessels assemblage consisted largely of architectural were mostly flatwares, or dinnerwares, while debris, that is, nails and fragmented brick. creamware vessels were mostly tea wares (Table A primary analytical tool applied to the 5). Half of the pearlware vessels were artifact assemblage was a conservative, or dinnerwares: six plates and one platter, out of a minimum count of individual ceramic vessels as total of fourteen vessels (one can, two saucers, represented by the excavated sherds. This three bowls, and a chamberpot completed the Minimum Vessel Count offers only a partial assemblage of pearlware) (Figure 32). All but image of Elizabeth Hemings’ goods related to one of the Chinese porcelain vessels were food consumption; unrepresented are those flatware: five plates and two platters (the vessels that probably were removed to other remaining vessel being a tea bowl). By contrast, households upon her death, and not seen are the the majority (67%) of creamware vessels were pewter vessels that might have comprised part of teawares: three tea bowls and three saucers (the this assemblage. Nonetheless, the ceramic sherds remaining creamware is represented by fragments offer some indication of ware and vessel types of a possible creamer, a single plate, and a used during Hemings’s occupation of the site. chamberpot). The blackglazed redware vessel was Analysis of the ceramic assemblage an unidentified hollow form, as was the white revealed a minimum of 33 vessels. Fourteen saltglazed vessel (though the latter probably was pearlware vessels comprised 42.42% of that total; a chamberpot). This relation between vessel form nine creamware and eight Chinese porcelain and ware type was noted earlier, along with a vessels represented 27.27% and 24.24% corresponding spatial distribution pattern of the respectively. One blackglazed redware vessel and discarded sherds and will be discussed in more

Flatwares Hollow Forms plate platter Total tea bowl saucer bowl can creamer ch. pot unid Total pearlware 6 1 7 2 3 1 1 7 porcelain 5 2 7 1 1 creamware 1 1 3 3 1 1 8 white salt 1 1 glaze blackglazed 1 1 redware Total 12 3 15 4 5 3 1 1 3 1 18

Table 5. Minimum vessel count for the Elizabeth Hemings site.

45 detail below. Twenty-nine vessels from the Hemings occupation could be dated solidly and were used to produce a mean ceramic date of 1790.3 (Table 6) (see South 1977:210-212). This averaged date reflects an assemblage that included older and well-used creamware, pearlware, and porcelain vessels, along with several pieces of more recently acquired pearlware. It is instructive to look at the vessels individually. With the exception of an overglaze painted saucer all of Elizabeth Hemings’s creamware was undecorated; all creamware pieces however were very light in tint, placing their Figure 32. Pearlware bowl recovered from the Elizabeth probable manufacture after the mid-1770s. Hemings site. Missing were annular decorated vessels that became common c. 1790. Among the pearlware, “blue willow-” type landscape in the central panel. Hemings’s shell-edged plates were all the rococo A “blue trellis” border (1690-1790) encircled the style popular from 1780-1810; two were green rim of a fourth plate while a fifth had a simple, edged, three were blue. A blue, rococo shell- hatched border. “Blue spearhead” motifs edged platter had additional moldings of beads decorated a fairly old (1735-1770), octagonal- and swags; it is contemporaneous with the plates. rimmed plate/platter, and a tea bowl also had a An additional plate/platter, painted with a blue “blue trellis” border. All of the porcelain was floral motif, also dates from this period. painted in blue under the glaze; there were no Numerous cuts or scratches in the glaze attest to overglaze enamels or gilding. The single white heavy and/or long use. A slop bowl, saucer, and saltglazed stoneware vessel, a globular, chamberpot painted in blue with floral or Chinese unidentified hollow form (probably a chamber motifs date c. 1780-1810 as well. More up-to-date pot), was decorated with a “debased” scratch blue were a polychrome painted saucer and can, or floral motif that dates c.1765-1790 (for more on small mug (date range 1795-1830), and an annular dates of porcelain decoration motifs, see Madsen decorated bowl (1790-1820). Three of the 1995). porcelain plates recovered from Hemings’s yard The ceramic assemblage from the midden were painted with Nanking II-style motifs Hemings site offers unique analytical that date from 1785-1800; all three featured a opportunities at several spatial and temporal

WARE AND DECORATIVE MOTIF DATE RANGE COUNT MEDIAN DATE

white saltglazed stoneware, debased scratch blue 1765-1790 1 1777.5 creamware, lighter tint 1775-1820 9 1797.5 pearlware, rococo molded 1780-1810 6 1795 pearlware blue painted wares, chinoiserie 1775-1810 4 1792.5 pearlware, annular/"warm" polychrome hues 1795-1830 3 1805 Chinese porcelain, Nanking II pattern 1785-1800 3 1792.5 Chinese porcelain "Blue Trellis" motif 1690-1790 2 1740 Chinese porcelain "Blue Spearhead" motif 1735-1770 1 1752.5

mean ceramic date = 1790.3

Table 6. Mean ceramic date for the Elizabeth Hemings.

46 scales. Taking advantage of them requires larger historical phenomenon, recognized by comparison of the Hemings assemblage with archaeologists as “Georgianization” (Deetz 1988, Monticello assemblages excavated from sites Leone 1988) and by social historians as the along Mulberry Row in the 1980s and from the “consumer revolution” (e.g. Carson 1994). Stewart-Watkins site in 1990. As we shall see, the To what extent were Monticello’s Stewart Site provides a particularly informative residents participants in these developments? comparison, given its almost precise Getting an answer to this question from contemporaneity with the Hemings occupation. archaeological evidence requires a measure of vessel frequency that is sensitive to variation in Consumption Patterns for Plates, Tea Bowls and Saucers discard rates, and use frequencies that drive them, Ceramic data from these sites need to be among Monticello sites. Here we use two understood in the context of long-term trends in measures, the Plate index and the Tea Index. The the consumption of stylish ceramics that swept Plate index (PI) is estimated as: the Chesapeake and the rest of the Atlantic world in the 18th and early 19th centuries. During the PI = plates late 17th and early 18th eighteenth centuries, (plates + bowls+ mugs) consumers replaced traditional pewter drinking vessels with newly fashionable ceramic ones where the numbers that comprise the index are supplied by Staffordshire earthenware and estimates of the minimum number of vessels of stoneware potters and by German stoneware each shape in the assemblage in question. The tea potters. This change is registered in a dramatic Index (TI) is estimated in a similar fashion. increase in the relative frequency of cups and mugs in the Chesapeake archaeological record (e.g. TI = (tea bowls + tea saucers) th Neiman 1980; Beaudry et al. 1981). The early 18 (tea bowls + tea saucers + bowls + mugs) century also witnessed the emergence among the wealthy of entirely novel ceramic vessel shapes-- tea bowls and saucers--required to execute These indices have an advantage over simple properly the social rituals surrounding tea percentages of the entire ceramic assemblage. consumption (Roth 1961). Evidence from They avoid spurious negative correlations induced probate inventories indicates that by the by the closed-sum constraint. For example, a American Revolution most Chesapeake high percentage of tea wares might not be a households contained at least one piece of the larger-than-normal number of tea wares; instead special equipment required to drink tea (Carr and it might result from a low number of some other Walsh 1994). Over the course of the last half of category. The assumption here of course is that the 18th century, consumers in the Chesapeake mug and bowl discard rates remained relatively and the rest of the English-speaking Atlantic constant. world replaced their traditional pewter dining It is clear that there is both substantively vessels with fashionable creamware, pearlware, and statistically significant variation among and Chinese porcelain plates (Martin 1994). Monticello sites in PI values (Figure 33). Despite Martin has shown, using probate inventory gaps in our knowledge of the archaeological evidence from Albemarle county, among other chronology of Mulberry Row sites, there is good sources, that during its heyday pewter was evidence for increases over time in PI values. PI ubiquitous in households at even the lowest values are lowest in the Dry Well and Building o economic and social levels, including households assemblages. The Dry Well assemblage is derived of slaves. The demise of pewter is currently best from the clay fill of a cool storage facility that was documented in data garnered from store invoices abandoned before it could be completed in the from Virginia and Maryland. Pewter plates 1770s. The feature’s proximity to Mulberry Row declined from 73% to 2% of plates available for and Monticello’s original kitchen dependency purchase between 1750 and 1810 (Martin 1989). suggests that the assemblage derives from slaves These trends in ceramic usage are a part of a living and working in that facility (cf. Crader 1990,

47 1 r Hemings Stewart 0.8 Smoke t l House s 0.6 Dry Well

o 0.4 Plate Index

0.2

0 Site Figure 33. Plate index values with exact 95% confidence limits for 7 Mulberry Row Sites and the Hemings and Stewart Sites. The Dry Well and Building o sites are known to be significantly earlier than the rest.

1 r Stewart Hemings

0.8 t Smoke 0.6 l House s Dry Well

o Tea Index 0.4

0.2

0 Site Figure 34. Tea index values with exact 95% confidence limits for 7 Mulberry Row sites and the Hemings and Stewart Sites.

48 Kelso 1997). Building o is located on Mulberry payoffs to letting others know it. Payoffs increase Row, and its occupation is currently thought to as familiarity between advertisers and receivers have ended by 1800 (Kelso 1997). Significantly declines and as individuals’s resource levels higher PI values are found at the other five become more difficult for receivers to ascertain Mulberry Row assemblages, from Buildings r, s, t, directly, without the help of cues from l, and the Smokehouse-Dairy (m). Chronological conspicuous consumption (Neiman 1997). control is poor, but the bulk of these assemblages Conspicuous consumption is an advertising is thought to date to the 1790s and the early strategy in which signalers attempt to attract 1800s (Kelso 1997). The Hemings and Stewart PI useful social allies and deter competitors by values are slightly greater than the values for the sending costly signals of their social and economic later Mulberry Row sites, with the exception of power that cannot be counterfeited. the anomalously high values for Building r. The If this is right, then our results indicate tentative conclusion is that enslaved and free that levels of resource access and/or the laborers at Monticello, like most Chesapeake advertising payoff increased at Monticello over residents, were increasing their investments in time and that the Hemings assemblage falls at the stylish ceramic plates at the expense of pewter. higher end of the continuum, although its small Elizabeth Hemings was a participant in this trend. sample size and correspondingly large confidence A similar pattern emerges for the TI limits add uncertainty. Additional uncertainty is values (Figure 34). Tea vessel discard rates forthcoming from the poor chronological control clearly increased over time. Among the later for the Mulberry Row assemblages. For example, Mulberry Row sites, Building r again emerges with it is not clear that the Building r assemblage’s PI an anomalously high value and it is nearly and TI values are high because the assemblage is matched by the Stewart assemblage. The Hemings much later in time than the others, or because the site falls in line with the later pattern of higher tea individuals who generated it invested significantly vessel frequency found on Mulberry Row. It is more resources in social advertizing than their clear then that tea vessel discard rates increased contemporaries. If time proves not to be a along Mulberry Row during the late 18th and early significant factor, then one could conclude that 19th centuries. However, it is also evident that resource access levels and/or advertising payoffs there is considerable variation among the later were higher for Elizabeth Hemings, the enslaved sites for both TI and PI values. In addition, this residents of building r, who themselves may have variation is strongly correlated: sites with higher been her descendants, and for the free blacksmith TI values have higher PI values. For example, the William Stewart. This would make sense to the Hemings Site has the second highest PI value and extent that the social and economic resources of the third highest TI value in the sample. the Hemings site’s and Building r ’s residents What might this correlated variation depended on maintenance of favorable mean? Our current working hypothesis is that TI relationships with Jefferson and his white family, and PI both measure the amount of resources that relationships whose character was difficult for individuals responsible for an assemblage were others to judge without material cues. Stewart, willing to expend on acquiring ceramics of little or despite the fact that he was free, may have been in no practical utility. In other words, TI and PI a similar position, although freedom brought both represent forms of conspicuous consumption greater economic resources and more contacts (Veblen 1899). Conspicuous consumption is a with people who were unfamiliar with the form of social advertising or costly signaling Monticello social scene. Ongoing research, (Boone 1998; Neiman 1997; Smith and Bliege conducted as part of the Mulberry Row Bird 2000). In this model, social advertising is Reassessment Project and aimed at finer-grained engineered to faithfully reflect the costs that must chronological control of these assemblages should be born to maintain it. The costs that individuals clarify the picture considerably. are willing to bear for social advertising are a function of the level of material and social Cost Implications of Ceramic Plate Discard Rates resources to which they have access and the The forgoing reading of assemblage variation

49 depends on the assumption that both PI and TI of 1. Newspaper ads and probate inventories are correlated with the costs incurred by an reveal that individuals wishing to unload their assemblage’s users. The case is easier to make for worn pewter vessels could expect to recover 40% TI values. After all, ceramic tea vessels represent of the original cost (Martin 1989:179). This leaves an entirely novel form of expenditure, and the us with a single missing value: the number of more tea you drink, the more tea ceramic vessels pewter vessels (n) that must be replaced each year you break. The case is not as clear cut for ceramic (or its reciprocal, the use life of a pewter vessel). plates because they are replacements for plates in The data necessary to estimate this value are another material: pewter. Because they are unavailable. However, it is possible to conclude replacements, the crucial question is whether or that, given the Hemings plate breakage rates, not maintaining a household with ceramic plates ceramic plates would have been more costly than was more costly than pewter plates. The pewter for all n values for pewter less than .52, or Hemings assemblage offers a path to an answer. for a mean use life for a pewter plate greater than We can make a start toward that answer 1.9 years. The corresponding values for the as follows. The total cost per year (T) to an Stewart data are .31 pewter plate/year and 3.2 individual opting to use a vessel in a given years. If pewter plates lasted more than 2-3 years material is a function of the costs of acquiring a on average, then running a household with even vessel (c), the proportion of the acquisition cost the cheapest available ceramic plates (creamware) that may be recouped after vessel failure through was more costly than running a household with recycling (r) , and the number of vessels that must pewter plates. This result offers independent be acquired per year to replace failed vessels (n): support for the idea that greater PI values at Monticello register greater social advertising costs. T= c(1-r)n It also suggests that by replacing pewter plates with ceramic ones, consumers across the In order to estimate the cost of ceramic plate Chesapeake saddled themselves with similarly usage relative to pewter, we need to have increased advertizing costs, a change that estimates of each of these quantities for both presumably was underwritten by increased wealth materials, or their ratios. The Hemings site levels or advertising payoffs or both. Teasing provides some of the necessary information. The apart the causal processes involved at Monticello spatially extensive sampling strategy allows us to and elsewhere is a goal for future research. use the Minimum Number of Vessels for plates as an estimate of the total number of plates Ceramic Ware Types and Vessel Shapes discarded at the site during the occupation. As we Elizabeth Hemings not only had access to have seen, documents indicate that Hemings lived fashionable ceramics, she was apparently selective at the site from 1795 to 1807. This yields a plate in what was acquired. Her choices contrast in discard rate of 1.25 plate/person/year (=15 plates interesting ways with those of the free blacksmith and platters /[1 person × 12 years]). The Stewart Stewart. Over 90 percent of ceramic vessels in assemblage yields a lower estimate of 0.74 both assemblages occur in creamware, pearlware, plates/person/year, although here the estimate is and Chinese porcelain. However tea vessels and complicated by the presence of 5 children who plates were distributed across the three ware types account for 30 person-years, in addition to in radically different patterns at each site. In Stewart himself (6 person-years) and his wife (2 addition, these patterns differed between the two person-years). sites. Store accounts from the last quarter of Understanding this variation requires the 18th century in Virginia reveal that the cost of knowing something about the acquisition costs an English-made creamware plate was 25% of the for ware types in question. Multiple sources of cost of a pewter one, while a Chinese porcelain evidence indicate that creamware vessels were plate cost nearly as much as pewter. Hence a considerably cheaper than pearlware or Chinese conservative estimate of the relative value of c for a porcelain. Store invoices indicate that a shell- ceramic plate is .25, relative to a value for pewter edged pearlware plate cost about 1.5 times a

50 0.7 Stewart 0.6 Hemings 0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 Relative Frequency 0.1

0 Creamware Pearlware Porcelain Ware Type

Figure 35. Proportion of plates and platters that occur in different ceramic ware types at the Hemings and Stewart Sites.

0.8 Stewart 0.7 Hemings 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Relative Frequency 0.1 0 Creamware Pearlware Porcelain Ware Type

Figure 36. Proportion of tea cups and saucers that occur in different ware types at the Hemings and Stewart Sites.

51 creamware plate by about 1800. Cost differentials Glass for painted pearlware tea vessels were similar Analysis of table glass (colorless, leaded glass), (~1.5-2.0) at this time (Miller 1991). Our current wine bottles, and other bottle fragments also best evidence for the cost of Chinese porcelain resulted in minimum vessel counts for those dates to the 1770s. At that time the cheapest artifact groups. Elizabeth Hemings had at least porcelain teacups and saucers were roughly twice three stemmed drinking vessels, or wine glasses. as expensive as their creamware equivalents. The Copper wheel engraving decorated a sherd from cheapest porcelain plates, on the other hand, were an unidentified vessel, possibly one of the above almost six times as expensive as creamware glasses. Three wine bottles were represented in flatwares (Martin 1994:181). the artifact assemblage: two English bottles and Consider first plates and platters. As one French bottle. Also present in the Figure 35 reveals, over 90 percent of Hemings’s assemblage were fragments of an aqua, glass flatwares occurred in more costly porcelain and pharmaceutical phial and an aqua, glass jar/bottle. pearlware, while she owned only a single creamware plate. The pattern for Stewart was the Architectural Materials reverse. Over 60 percent of Stewart’s plates were The architectural debris encountered at the creamware. The difference is statistically Hemings site included some three dozen hand- significant. Thus Hemings’s plates were more molded bricks and brick bats (broken bricks costly than Stewart’s. When we consider tea retaining two measurable surfaces). All were wares, we see precisely the opposite pattern overfired and/or warped. (An additional sixteen (Figure 36). Sixty-seven percent of Hemings’s pounds of fragments, equaling roughly four tea wares were cheap creamware, while over 85 bricks, were also recovered.) Jefferson had brick percent of Stewart’s were in more costly pearlware made on the plantation for the ongoing and porcelain. Again the difference is statistically construction and renovation of the mansion; the significant. bricks found on the Hemings site appear to have If ceramic dining and tea drinking vessels been “wasters” (bricks ruined in the firing were forms of social advertising, then Hemings’s process) that were unsuitable for this purpose and and Stewart’s signaling strategies differed. were instead used in the construction of the Hemings invested more advertising effort in Hemings dwelling. The ruined brick included one dining vessels and less in tea vessels, while Stewart watertable brick, one a cavetto-molded section invested more heavily in tea vessels than in dining (similar to those used in Jefferson’s chimney vessels. It is worth noting that this difference moldings), and four other fragments of specially- may also be registered in the fact that the Stewart molded brick. Most of the bricks and brick bats assemblage TI values are greater than the were concentrated in the hearth feature. Hemings assemblage (Figure 34). Only 17 sherds of window glass were What might account for this mirror- recovered from the site; together they make up image pattern? One possibility is that it betrays a less than one 12" by 12" pane of glass (the difference in the contexts for social display in the standard size in Jefferson’s day [McLaughlin two households. Stewart and his family used the 1988:164]). While small in number, the window emerging ritual of tea consumption to impress glass sherds suggest that the dwelling had at least unfamiliar competitors and allies, while apparently one glazed window. dining with individuals who were already familiar Finally, the site produced a sizable with their social and economic ability. For quantity of nails, most of which were wrought. Hemings, meals were the venue for signaling to Preservation was fairly good, due in part to the others, while tea drinking was more of a private ferrous sediments of the site; this allowed for affair. More work is needed to determine if this identification not only of the manufacturing pattern holds for the rest of Monticello’s enslaved technique (wrought or machine-cut) but also of workforce. shank length. As discussed in Chapter 3 nails occurred in two length categories, roughly corresponding to nails used for finishing work

52 and for basic construction. Nail fragments denoted shafts (with or without ends) with heads no longer extant, and while they were cataloged, fragments were not included in any counts. A total of 811 nails were recovered. Wrought nails comprised 90.63% of the total (735 out of 811). They were divided nearly equally in terms of size: 49.52% measured between two and four inches in length, and 39.86% were less than two inches; 10.61% were of indeterminate length, the points not being extant. Most of the wrought nails had faceted “roseheads;” L-headed, T-headed, and headless nails were fewer in number. One horseshoe nail and one strake nail (used to attach an iron band or “tire” to the wooden wheel of a wagon or carriage) probably attest to the proximity of the Third Roundabout. Machine-cut nails made up only 9.37% of Figure 37. Miscellaneous artifacts recovered from the the assemblage; nearly all (64 out of 76) measured Betty Hemings site including copper alloy upholstery tacks less than two inches. Of these short nails, (upper right), lead shot (lower right), slate pencil fragment nineteen were hand-headed, 5 had L-heads, four (lower left), copper alloy buttons (upper left), and copper had machined, square heads, two were headless, alloy shoe buckle (center). and 34 had heads of indeterminate manufacture. Seven machine-cut nails measured between two scrap lead were also found, as was a slate pencil. and four inches; all were hand-headed except for The slate pencil was seven-sided, half a centimeter one indeterminate head. Of five nails of in diameter, and measured just 3.8 cm in length. indeterminate length, two were hand-headed, one had a machined, square head and two were indeterminate. The preponderance of short lengths and hand-headed manufacture indicates that these nails date from the late eighteenth-early nineteenth century, when production of machine- cut nails began.

Miscellaneous As noted above, Elizabeth Hemings’s recoverable household goods included furniture tacks, buttons, a shoe buckle, and a slate pencil fragment (Figure 37). The six copper alloy upholstery tacks, with domed heads and square-sided shafts with pointed ends all measured approximately one centimeter, both in length and head diameter. Upholstery tacks secured leather or fabric covering to chairs, and leather straps to wooden trunks. Both buttons were one-piece, pewter disks with loop shanks. The small, copper alloy shoe buckle was decorated with a chased design and fit the shoe of a woman or adolescent. Three pieces of lead round shot and one fragment of

53 5. Summary

The archaeological investigation at the Elizabeth those documented on other archaeological sites. Hemings site provided for the first time insight General activities such as social interaction, food into the life of an enslaved African American preparation and sleeping occurred in or near the living off of Mulberry Row. The project dwelling. Special activities such as waste disposal investigated how the site location fit into the (fireplace ash, food waste, and trash dumping) larger Monticello Plantation. It revealed that what took place further from the structure. Due to the initially appeared to be an isolated site location, slope of the site (20% average), the general was actually a central location between important activity area was lozenge-shaped as opposed to sources of water and Mulberry Row where the more common circular pattern. This is the Hemings’s children and grandchildren worked result of the higher energy cost for traveling up or and lived. down slope as opposed to along the contours. Archaeological testing showed that The Third Roundabout, 30 feet uphill or to the Elizabeth Hemings lived for the last decade of her north and the cobble scatter 65 feet to the life (approximately 1795 until 1807) in a single southeast (along the slope) are two of the room structure approximately fourteen by twelve boundaries between the general and special feet in size. The house was most likely built of activity areas. From this estimate, Elizabeth logs and contained at least one glazed window, Hemings’s yard space was at least ten times that and a 7.5 foot square hearth. The lack of great of the people living along Mulberry Row. quantities of brick and stone and more Analysis of the ceramic assemblage importantly a chimney prop post hole showed showed that Elizabeth Hemings had access to conclusively that Hemings’s chimney was made of fashionable ceramics and was selective in what wattle and daub. A cobble scatter measuring 23 she acquired. Hemings, like her contemporaries, by 12 feet was found sixty feet to the southeast of replaced pewter vessels with more costly ceramic Elizabeth’s dwelling. The scatter with its straight versions. Cheaper creamware ceramics were northern edge represents the results of field acquired for tea consumption, but she acquired clearing along a boundary such as a fence. A more expensive pearlware and porcelain plates for likely explanation is that the area cleared was a food consumption. This pattern is a mirror garden south of the dwelling. Additional image to the ceramic assemblage of William sampling for pollen and phytoliths in this area Stewart, a free blacksmith living at Monticello could resolve the ambiguities. from 1801-8. The difference appears to be related Phytolith analysis shows that while the to different patterns of social advertising. For site lies in a hardwood forest today, during Hemings, meals were the venue for more costly Elizabeth Hemings’s occupation, the area was display, while tea drinking was a more informal open and dominated by grasses and to a lesser affair. In contrast, Stewart used the emerging extent shrubs. The area immediately surrounding ritual of tea consumption to impress unfamiliar Hemings’s house was the exception; lower competitors and allies. More work is needed to amounts of chloridoid grasses which thrive determine if this patters holds for the rest of in hot, dry environments suggests that some trees Monticello’s enslaved workforce and to explore remained to shade the dwelling. further its meaning. By living next to the Third Roundabout, Elizabeth was able to enjoy a much larger activity space than either the enslaved or free workers living along Mulberry Row. Multiple lines of evidence, including landscape analysis, cost surface modeling, soil and sediment chemistry and artifact distributions, point towards Elizabeth organizing her activity space in a pattern similar to

54 References

Atchison, J. 1982 The statistical analysis of compositional data (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 44, 139-177.

Ankerman, Don and Richard Large n.d. Soil and Plant Analysis Agronomy Handbook. A&L Agricultural Laboratories, Memphis.

Baxter M. J. 1994 Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press.

Bear, James A., Jr. (editor) 1967 Jefferson at Monticello. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Bear, James A., Jr. and Lucia C. Stanton, (editors) 1997 Jefferson’s Memorandum Books: Accounts, with Legal Records and Miscellany, 1767-1826. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson: Second Series. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Beaudry, Mary C. 1981 A Vessel Typology for Early Chesapeake Ceramics: The Potomac Typological System. In Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, George L. Miller, Olive R. Jones, Lester A. Ross and Teresita Majewski, compilers, The Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 11-36.

Betts, Edwin M. (editor) 1944 Thomas Jefferson’s Garden Book 1766-1824 With Relevant Extracts from his other Writings. The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.

Betts, Edwin M. (editor) 1987 Thomas Jefferson’s Farm Book with Commentary and Relevant Extracts from other Writings. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Betts, Edwin M., and James A. Bear, Jr. (editors) 1966 The Family Letters of Thomas Jefferson. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Binford, Lewis R. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, London.

1987 Researching Ambiguity: Frames of Reference and Site Structure. In Method and Theory in Activity Area Research, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 449-512. Columbia University Press, New York.

Boone, James L. 1998 The Evolution of Magnanimity: when is it better to give than to receive? Human Nature 9(1).

Boyd, Julian P. (editor) 1956 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 13. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

1958 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 14. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

55 Boyd, Julian P. (editor) 1971 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 18. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Boyer, William P. 1983 Archeological Survey at Monticello and Tufton: A Report on the 1981 Season. Ms. on file, Monticello Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Brown, Marley R. III and Joanne Bowen 1995 An Archaeological Perspective on the Material Life of Williamsburg’s Artisan Community. In Common People and Their Material World: Free men and Women in the Chesapeake, 1700-1830, edited by David Harvey and Gregory Brown, pp. 55-64. Printed by Dietz Press, Richmond, VA for Colonial Williamsburg Research Publications.

Carr, Lois G. and Lorena Walsh 1994 Changing Lifestyles and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake. In Of Consuming Interests, The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert, pp. 59-166. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Carson, Cary 1994 The Consumer Revolution in Colonial British America: Why Demand? In Of Consuming Interests, The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert, pp. 483-700. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Clarks Lab 1997 Idrisi For Windows User’s Guide Version 2.0. Clark Labs for Cartographic Technology and Geographic Analysis. Clark University, Worcester, MA.

Cook , Sherburne F. and Robert F. Heizer 1965 Studies on the Chemical Analysis of Archaeological Sites. University of California Publications in Anthropology 2. Berkeley, CA.

Crader, Diane 1990 Slave diet at Monticello. American Antiquity 55(4):690-718.

Deetz, James 1988 Material Culture and World View in Colonial Anglo-America. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, edited by M.P. Leone and P.B. Potter pp. 219-235. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.

Eidt, Robert C. 1977 Detection and analysis of anthrosols by phosphate analysis. Science 197:1327-1333.

1985 Theoretical and practical considerations in the analysis of anthrosols. In Archaeological Geology, edited by G.R. Rapp. Academic Press, San Diego.

Ericson, Jonathon E. and R. Goldstein 1980 Workspace: a new approach to the analysis of energy expenditure within site catchments. In Catchment Analysis: Essays on Prehistoric Resource Space, edited by F.J. Findlowand and J.E. Ericson, pp.21-30. Department of Anthropology, UCLA.

56 Foster, E. A., M. A. Jobling, P. de Kniff, R. Meremet, T. Zerjal, and C. Tyler Smith 1998 Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child. Nature :196.

Gawalt, Gerald W. 1994 Jefferson’s Slaves: Crop Accounts at Monticello 1805-1808. Journal of the Afro-American Historical and Genealogical Society, pp. 19-38.

Golden Software, Inc. 1999 Surfer 7© User’s Guide: Contouring and 3D Surface Mapping for Scientists and Engineers. Golden Software, Inc., Golden, Colorado.

Gordon-Reed, Annette 1997 Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Griffith M.A. 1980 A Pedological Investigation of an Archaeological Site in Ontario, Canada. An examination of the soils in and adjacent to a former village. Geoderma 24:327-336.

1981 A Pedological Investigation of an Archaeological Site in Ontario, Canada. Use of chemical data to discriminate features at the Benson Site. Geoderma 25: 27-34.

Heath, Barbara J. 1991 A Report on the Archaeological Excavations at Monticello, Charlottesville, VA: The Stewart/Watkins House 1989-1990. Ms. on file, Monticello Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

1999 “‘Your Humbel Servant’: Free Artisans in the Monticello Community.” In “I, Too, Am America”: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life. Theresa A. Singleton, editor. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Heidenreich, C.E. and V.A. Konrad 1973 Soil analysis at the Robitaille Site, Part II: a Method Useful in the Determination of Longhouse Patterns. Ontario Archaeology 21: 33-62.

Hitchcock, Robert 1987 Sedentism and Site Structure Organization in Kalahari Basarwa Residential Locations. In Method and Theory in Activity Area Research, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 374-423. Columbia University Press, New York.

Kelso, William 1997 Archaeology at Monticello. Monticello Monograph Series, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Keeler, Robert W. 1978 The Homelot on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Tidewater Frontier. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Kern, Susan A. 1995a Field Notes: 1995 Summer Archaeological Project - No. 2, 6/28/95. Memorandum on file, Monticello Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

57 Kern, Susan A. 1995b Field Notes: 1995 Summer Archaeological Project - No. 3, 7/12/95. Memorandum on file, Monticello Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

1996 Personal Communication.

Kimball, Fiske 1968 Thomas Jefferson Architect: Original Designs in the Coolidge Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society With an Essay and Notes. Da Capo Press, New York.

King, Julia A. 1988 A Comparative Midden Analysis of a Household and Inn in St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 22(2):17-39.

Konrad, Victor A., R. Bonnichsen, and V. Clay. 1983 Soil chemical identification of 10,000 Years of Prehistoric Human Activity at the Munsungun Lake Thoroughfare, Maine. Journal of Archaeological Science. 10:13-28.

Leone, M. 1988 The Georgian order as the order of merchant capitalism in Annapolis, Maryland. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, edited by M.P. Leone and P.B. Potter pp. 235-261. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.

Madsen, Andrew David 1995 “All Sorts of China Ware...Large, Noble, and Rich Chinese Bowls:” Eighteenth-Century Chinese Export Porcelain in Virginia. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, the College of William and Mary in Virginia.

Martin, Ann Smart 1989 The role of pewter as missing artifact: consumer attitudes toward tablewares in late 18th-century Virginia. Historical Archaeology 23(2):1-27.

1994 “Fashionable Sugar Dishes, Latest Fashion Ware”, The creamware revolution in the eighteenth century Chesapeake. In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, edited by Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, pp. 169-187. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

McLaughlin, Jack 1988 Jefferson and Monticello: The Biography of a Builder. Henry Holt and Company, New York.

Metz, John, Lisa Kealhoffer, Leslie McFaden, Fraser Neiman and Derek Wheeler 2000 Archaeological Investigation of the Garden Terrace, Kitchen Dependency and Corner Terraces. Manuscript on file, Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Middleton, William D., and T. Douglas Price 1996 Identification of Activity Areas by Multi-element Characterization of Sediments from Modern and Archaeological House Floors Using Inductively Coupled Plasma-atomic Emission Spectroscopy. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:0-15.

58 Miller, George 1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of Nineteenth Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14: 1- 40. 1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1):1-25.

Neiman, Fraser D. 1980 The “Manner House” before Stratford: Discovering the Clifts Plantation. Robert E. Lee Memorial Association, Stratford VA.

1993 Temporal Patterning in House Plans from the 17th Century Chesapeake. In The Archaeology of 17th- Century Virginia. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 30. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.

1997 Conspicuous Consumption as Wasteful Advertising: a Darwinian Perspective on Spatial Patterns in Classic Maya Terminal Monument Dates. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation, edited by C. Michael Barton and Geoffrey A. Clark, pp. 267-290. Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 7, Washington, D.C.

2000 Coincidence or Causal Connection? The Relationship between Thomas Jefferson’s Visits to Monticello and Sally Hemings’s Conceptions. William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series LVII(1):198- 210.

Neiman, Fraser, Leslie McFaden, John Metz, and Derek Wheeler 1999 Settlement and Land-Use Dynamics at Monticello Plantation: 1770-1826. Paper presented at the 1999 Society for Historical Archaeology Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Nichols, Frederick 1978 Thomas Jefferson’s Architectural Drawings: Compiled and with Commentary and Check List. The University of Virginia Press, New York.

O’Connell, James F. 1987 Alyawara Site Structure and its Archaeological Implications. American Antiquity 52:74-108.

O’Connell, James F., Kristen Hawkes, and Nicholas Jones. 1991 Distribution of Refuse Producing Activities at Hadza Residential Base Camps: Implications for Analyses of Archaeological Site Structure. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by Ellen M. Kroll and T. Douglas Price, pp. 61-76. Plenum Press, New York.

Piperno, Dolores. 1988 Phytolith Analysis: An Archaeological and Geological Perspective. Academic Press, San Diego.

Pogue, Dennis 1988 Anthrosols and the Analysis of Archaeological Sites in a Plowed Context: The King’s Reach Site. Northeast Historical Archaeology, 17:1-15.

Roth, Rodris 1961 Tea Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage. Bulletin No. 225 paper 14. Contributions to the Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution.

59 Sanford, Douglas 1995 The Archaeology of Plantation Slavery at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello: Context and Process in an American Slave Society. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Sherwood, W. Cullen 1981 Rock Materials Used in the Garden and Exit Walls at Monticello. Ms. on file, Monticello Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Shuldenrein, Joseph 1995 Geochemistry, Phosphate Fractionation, and the Detection of Activity Areas at Prehistoric North American Sites. In Pedological Perspectives in Archaeological Research, pp.107-132. Soil Science Society of America, Special Publication 44. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

Smith, Eric Alden and Rebecca Lynn Bliege Bird 2000 Turtle Hunting and Tombstone Opening: Public Generosity as Costly Signaling. In Evolution and Human Behavior, in press.

South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Stanton, Lucia 1996 Slavery at Monticello. Monticello Monograph Series. Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

(in press)Free Some Day: The African-American Families of Monticello. Monticello Monograph Series. Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Sullivan, Kelly 1999 Personal Communication.

Twiss, Page C. 1992 Predicted World Distribution of C3 and C4 Grass Phytoliths. In Phytolith Systematics. Edited by G. Rapp, Jr. and S.C. Mulholland, pp. 113-128. Plenum Press, New York.

Tylers Quarterly Magazine 1924-5 John Wayles's will, 15 Apr. 1760. Tyler's Quarterly Magazine, 6 (1924-25).

USDA 1985 Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

Veblen, Thorstein 1899 The Theory of the Leisure Class. (1992) Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.

Wandsnider, LuAnn 1996 Describing and Comparing Archaeological Spatial Structures. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 3(4):319-384.

Yellen, John E. 1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press, New York.

60 Appendix I. Artifact Inventory

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 0430 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 0430 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 0430 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Empontilled Body 0430 1 Bone Faunal Specimen Medium Mammal Natural/Unworked 0430 1 Brick Brick Hand Made 1859A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Undecorated Base 1859A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Press Molded Undecorated Base 1861A 1 Iron Nail Tire/Strake Wrought/Forged 1863A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Porcelain Porcellaneous Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Painted Under Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Base 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

61 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Annular Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Annular Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Annular Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Indeterminate 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Indeterminate 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body

62 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1864A 1 Faunal Specimen 1864A 1 Charcoal 1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Body 1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1864A 1 Glass Window Glass 1864A 1 Glass Window Glass 1864A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown 1864A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base 1864A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base 1864A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base 1864A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Copper Wheel En Free Blown Body 1864A 1 Brick Brick Bat 1864A 1 Brick Brick Bat 1864A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1864A 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1864A 28 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1864A 4 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1864A 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1864A 42 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1864A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1864A 8 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1864A 4 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged 1864A 2 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1864A 4 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1864A 2 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1864A 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1864A 3 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Machine-Cut 1864A 1 Iron Nail Horseshoe Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1864A 1 Iron Nail Fragment Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1864A 4 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1864A 6 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut 1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base

63 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1864A 1 Slate Pencil 1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1864B 1 Brick Fragment 1864B 4 Faunal Specimen 1864B 4 Charcoal Organic Substance 1864B 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1864B 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1864B 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1864B 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1864B 2 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1864B 1 Kaolin Tobacco Pipe Imported Press Molded Bowl 1864B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body 1864B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Handle 1864B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1864B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1864B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1864B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Annular Body 1865A 1 Charcoal Organic Substance 1865A 1 Plastic Button One Piece Molded 1865A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base 1865A 7 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1865A 9 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1865A 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1865A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim

64 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1865B 1 Copper Alloy Ring Cast 1865B 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1865B 4 Iron Nail Wrought/Forged 1865B 1 Brick Brick 1865B 1 Copper Alloy Ring 1865B 7 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1865B 11 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1865B 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1865B 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1865B 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1865B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1865B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1865B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1865E 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1867A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Free Blown/Empontilled 1867A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1867A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1868A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1869A 4 Charcoal Organic Substance 1870A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Free Blown/Empontilled Body 1872A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1877A 2 Charcoal Organic Substance 1879A 1 Bone Faunal Specimen Medium Mammal Natural/Unworked 1879A 3 Iron Wire Barbed Drawn 1879A 22 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire 1879A 6 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wire 1883A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Free Blown/Empontilled Body 1888A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1888A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1890A 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Free Blown/Empontilled Body 1891A 1 Charcoal Organic Substance 1891A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1897A 1 Charcoal Organic Substance 1897A 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body

65 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1897A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1897A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1897A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1897A 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Green Mold Blown Body 1897A 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Aqua Mold Blown Body 1897A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Aqua Free Blown Body 1897A 1 Glass Window Glass 1897A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body 1897A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1897A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1897A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Printed Under Body 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1898A 1 Quartzite Stone Architectural 1898A 1 Glass Button One Piece White Mold Blown 1898A 2 Faunal Specimen 1898A 1 Charcoal Organic Substance 1898A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1898A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1898A 1 Glass Container Bottle Aqua Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1898A 3 Glass Window Glass 1898A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1898A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1898A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1898A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1898A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1898A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body

66 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1899A 1 Brick Fragment 1899A 1 Quartzite Stone Architectural 1899A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1899A 3 Window Glass 1899A 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1899A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1899A 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1899A 1 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1899A 1 Coarse Earthenware Black-Glazed Redware Wheel Thrown Body 1899A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1899A 1 Stoneware White Salt-Glazed Wheel Thrown Body 1899A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1899A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1899A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1899A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1899A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Finish 1900A 1 Brick Fragment 1900A 1 Brick Watertable 1900A 1 Copper Alloy Ring 1900A 1 Charcoal Organic Substance 1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Finish 1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1900A 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1900A 3 Glass Window Glass 1900A 3 Glass Window Glass 1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Base 1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Base 1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Rim 1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Rim 1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Body 1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Body

67 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Rim 1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Indeterminate 1900A 87 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1900A 8 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1900A 19 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1900A 2 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1900A 5 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1900A 2 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1900A 4 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1900A 63 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1900A 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1900A 4 Iron Nail HeadLess Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1900A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1900A 2 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1900A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Blunt Cut End Wrought/Forged 1900A 2 Iron Nail Machine-Square Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1900A 7 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1900A 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1900A 8 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1900A 3 Faunal Specimen 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body

68 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

69 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

70 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Over Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim

71 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

72 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body

73 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Over Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Over Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim

74 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body

75 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Stem 1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base 1900A 2 Copper Alloy Upholstery Tack Cast 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base 1900A 1 Copper Alloy Buckle Shoe Cast 1900B 10 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1900B 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1900B 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1900B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1900B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1900B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1900B 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1900B 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1900B 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body 1900B 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Indeterminate 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Over Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

76 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1902A 1 Brick Fragment 1902A 1 LEAD SCRAP Cast 1902A 1 Copper Alloy Upholstery Tack Cast 1902A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1902A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1902A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1902A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Finish 1902A 2 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1902A 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1902A 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1902A 23 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1902A 24 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1902A 5 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1902A 4 Faunal Specimen 1902A 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1902A 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wire 1902A 2 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1902A 1 Iron Nail L-Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1902A 17 Iron Wire Barbed Drawn 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body

77 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Over Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Base 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body

78 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1902B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded 1902B 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Rim 1902B 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body 1902B 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Green Free Blown/Empontilled Body 1902B 1 Copper Alloy Button One Piece Cast 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim 1902B 15 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1902B 3 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1902B 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1902B 6 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1902B 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1902B 22 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1902B 8 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1902B 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1902B 4 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1902B 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1902B 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged 1902B 1 Iron Nail Machine-Square Machine-Cut 1902B 1 Iron Unid Hardware Wrought/Forged 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim

79 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

80 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Base 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Base 1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1903A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1903A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body 1903A 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1904A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1904A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1905A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1906A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1906A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1906A 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1911A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1911A 1 Slag/Clinker 1918A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body 1918A1 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Wire 1918A1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wire 1918A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body 1918A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body 1918A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body 1918A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body

81 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1918A2 1 Stoneware White Salt-Glazed Scr/Fill:Debased Blue Press Molded Body 1918A2 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Wire 1919A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Colored Glass Amber Machine Made Body 1919A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Colored Glass Amber Machine Made Body 1919A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Colored Glass Amber Machine Made Body 1919A2 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Colored Glass Machine Made Body 1919A2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wire 1920A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1921A1 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Undecorated Indeterminate 1921A1 100 Tinned Iron CAN Food/Condiment Rolled/Sheet 1921A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1922A1 2 Tinned Iron CAN Food/Condiment Rolled/Sheet Rim 1922A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1922A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1922A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1923A3 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1923A3 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1924A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1926B2 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Rim 1926B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Other Mold Decoration Blue Press Molded Rim 1927A2 2 Brick Fragment 1928A1 1 Refined Earthenware Bennington Press Molded Rim And Body 1928A1 1 Refined Earthenware Bennington Press Molded Rim And Body 1931A2 1 LEAD Ammunition Round Shot Dropped 1933A1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wire 1933A2 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire 1933A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1934A1 7 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire 1934A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1934A3 2 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire 1935A1 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Base 1935A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Wheel Thrown Body 1935A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Wheel Thrown Body 1935A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1935A2 1 Glass Window Glass 1936A1 2 Glass Window Glass 1943A1 12 Charcoal Organic Substance 1943A1 12 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body

82 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 1943A2 7 Charcoal Organic Substance 1944A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1944A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 1944A1 6 Charcoal Organic Substance 1946B1 2 Charcoal Organic Substance 1947C1 1 Quartz Unmodified Stone 1951A1 1 Glass Container Unidentified Colorless Colorless-Ld Body 1951A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1951A2 1 Quartz Unmodified Stone 1953A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1953A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1955B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1955B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1955B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1955B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1955B2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1955B2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1955B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1955B3 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1956A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1956A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Indeterminate Tip Wrought/Forged 1956B1 1 Brick Fragment 1956B1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Wrought/Forged 1956B1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Wrought/Forged 1956B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1956B1 7 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1956B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1956B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1956B2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1956B2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1956B2 2 Iron Nail HeadLess Wrought/Forged 1956B2 2 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged

83 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1956B2 4 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged 1957A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1957A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1957A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1957A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1957B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1957B1 1 Brick Fragment 1957B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1957B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1957B1 2 Brick Fragment 1957B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1958A2 2 Charcoal Organic Substance 1958A2 23 Brick Fragment 1958A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1958A2 5 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1958B1 8 Brick Fragment 1958B1 1 Charcoal Organic Substance 1958B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1958B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1958B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1958B1 2 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut 1958B1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1961B1 1 Brick Fragment 1962A1 1 Quartz Unmodified Stone 1962A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1962B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1963A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1963B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body 1963B1 1 Brick Fragment 1963B2 1 Floral Floral Specimen 1964A1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Indeterminate 1964A1 1 Glass Window Glass 1964A1 3 Brick Fragment 1964A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1964A2 1 Copper Alloy Upholstery Tack Cast 1964A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1964A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1964A2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1964A2 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Pointed End Machine-Cut 1964A2 16 Brick Fragment

84 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1964B1 1 Brick Fragment 1965A1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1965A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1965A1 4 Brick Fragment 1965A1 1 Brick Bat 1965A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1965A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1965A2 2 Brick Fragment 1965A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1965A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1965A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1968A1 1 Floral Floral Specimen 1968A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1968A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1968A2 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Rim 1968A2 1 Glass Table Glass Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Body 1968A2 1 Glass Table Glass Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Indeterminate 1968A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1968A2 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1968A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1968A2 1 Iron Nail T-Head Wrought/Forged 1968A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Pointed End Machine-Cut 1968A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut 1968A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Chisel Point Machine-Cut 1968A2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Machine-Cut 1968A2 10 Brick Fragment 1968A2 1 Brick Bat Molded Brick 1968A2 1 Brick

85 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1968B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1968B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1968B1 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut 1968B1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged 1968B2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1969A1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1969A1 5 Brick Fragment 1969A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1969A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1969A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1969A2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1969A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Wrought/Forged 1969A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut 1969A2 2 Iron Nail Fragment Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1969A2 30 Brick Fragment 1969A2 1 Brick Bat Molded Brick 1969A2 1 Brick Bat Molded Brick 1969A2 1 Brick Bat 1969B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim 1969B1 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1969B1 1 Iron Nail T-Head Wrought/Forged 1969B1 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1969B1 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut 1969B1 2 Brick Fragment 1970A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1970B1 1 Copper Alloy Upholstery Tack Cast 1971A1 1 Brick Fragment 1971A1 1 Slag/Clinker 1971A1 1 GreenStone Unmodified Stone 1971A2 1 Brick Fragment 1971A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1972A1 2 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1973A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1974A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Indeterminate 1976A1 1 Coarse Earthenware Black-Glazed Redware Wheel Thrown Body 1977A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Indeterminate 1978A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1978A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1978A1 1 Brick Fragment 1978A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body

86 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1978A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1978A2 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Base 1978A2 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Body 1978A2 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1978A2 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1978A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Indeterminate Tip Wrought/Forged 1978A2 2 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1978A2 8 Brick Fragment 1978A2 1 Brick Molded Brick 1978B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1978B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1978B1 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1978B1 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Pointed End Machine-Cut 1978B1 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Machine-Cut 1978B1 1 Brick Fragment 1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Indeterminate 1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Indeterminate 1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Copper Wheel En Free Blown Body 1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body 1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body 1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body 1978B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1978B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1978B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1979A1 5 Brick Fragment 1979A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1979A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

87 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1979A2 6 Brick Fragment 1980A1 3 Brick Fragment 1980A1 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 1980A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1980A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1980A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1980A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1980A2 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Wrought/Forged 1980A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1981A1 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1981A1 3 Brick Fragment 1981A1 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base 1981A2 1 Brick Fragment 1981A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim 1981A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1981A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1981A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1982A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1982A1 1 Glass Window Glass 1982A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1982A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim 1983A1 2 Faunal Specimen 1983A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim 1983A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim 1983A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Body 1983B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1984A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1984A2 6 Brick Fragment 1984A2 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Rim 1984A2 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1984B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1984B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1984B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1984B1 2 Brick Fragment 1985A1 4 Brick Fragment 1985A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1985A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1985A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1985A2 6 Brick Fragment 1985B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged

88 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1985B1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1985B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1985B1 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1985B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1985B1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged 1985B1 20 Brick Fragment 1985B2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1986A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1986A2 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1986A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1986A2 1 Iron Nail Machine-Square Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1986A2 6 Brick Fragment 1987A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1987A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1987A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1987A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1987A3 3 Brick Fragment 1987A3 1 Copper Alloy Button One Piece Cast 1987B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1987B1 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1987B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1987B1 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1987B1 1 Iron Nail T-Head Wrought/Forged 1987B1 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1987B1 11 Brick Fragment 1987B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1988A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1988A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1988A1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1988A1 3 Brick Fragment 1988A1 1 Quartz Unmodified Stone 1988A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1988A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1988A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1988A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1988A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1988A2 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1988A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1988A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1988A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged

89 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1988A3 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1988A3 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged 1988A3 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 1989A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1989A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1989A2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1989A2 2 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1989A2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Machine-Cut 1989A2 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body 1989A2 1 Brick Bat 1989A2 10 Brick Fragment 1989A3 1 Brick Fragment 1990A1 3 Charcoal Organic Substance 1990A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1990A2 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1990A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1990A2 1 Brick Fragment 1990A2 1 Brick Bat 1990A2 1 Brick Bat 1991A1 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1991A1 1 Iron Staple Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1991A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1991A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 1991A2 1 Brick Fragment 1992A1 1 Brick Fragment 1992A2 1 Quartzite Stone Architectural 1992A2 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Body 1992C1 1 LEAD Ammunition Round Shot 1993A1 1 Quartzite Mineral Sample 1993A1 1 Brick 1993A1 1 Porcelain Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1993A1 1 Porcelain Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1993A2 3 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1993A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1993A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1993A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 1993A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1993A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1993A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1993A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

90 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1993A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1993A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1995ZZ 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat 1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat 1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat 1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat Watertable 1995ZZ 1 Brick 1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat 1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat 1996A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1996A1 1 Iron Wire Barbed Drawn 1996A1 1 Charcoal Organic Substance 1996A1 1 Brick Fragment 1996A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1996A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1996A2 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 1996A3 4 Brick Fragment 1996A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 1996A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1996A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1996B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1996B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1996B1 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1996B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1996B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1996B1 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1996B1 1 Brick Fragment 1996B1 1 Charcoal Organic Substance 1996B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1996B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1996B1 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 1996B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1996UU 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1996UU 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1996UU 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 1996UU 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1996UU 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1996UU 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 1996UU 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body

91 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 1997A1 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire 1997A1 1 Charcoal Organic Substance 1997A3 1 Brick Fragment 1997B1 1 Charcoal Organic Substance 1997B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1998A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1998A2 4 Brick Fragment 1998A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Body 1998A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Body 1998A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1998A3 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged 1998A3 7 Brick Fragment 1998B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1998B1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Wrought/Forged 1998B1 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire 1999A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1999A1 10 Brick Fragment 1999A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 1999A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1999A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1999A2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1999A2 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire 1999A2 11 Brick Fragment 1999A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1999A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1999A3 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 1999A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 1999A3 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged 1999A3 4 Brick Fragment 1999A3 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base 2000ZZ 1 Quartz Biface Stage Two WORKED 2001A1 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Wire 2001A2 1 Brick Fragment 2001B1 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 2002A1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2002A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2002A2 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 2002A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 2002A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2003A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged

92 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 2003A2 5 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2003A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Wrought/Forged 2003A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2003A2 3 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2003A2 4 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2003B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2003B2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2003B2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2003B2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2003B2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wrought/Forged 2003B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2003B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 2004A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2004A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2004A2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2004A2 11 Brick Fragment 2004A2 1 Quartz Mineral Sample 2004A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2004A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2004A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2004A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2004A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 2004A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2004A3 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2004A3 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2004A3 1 Iron Nail L-Head Wrought/Forged 2004A3 1 Iron Nail Fragment Indeterminate Tip Wrought/Forged 2004A3 4 Brick Fragment 2004A3 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim 2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

93 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2004B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2005A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2005A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2005A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2005A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2005A2 1 Quartzite Fire-Crack Rock 2005A2 2 Quartz Mineral Sample 2006A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2006A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Handle 2006A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2006A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2006A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2006A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2006A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2007A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 2007A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2007A2 1 LEAD Ammunition Round Shot Cast 2007A2 8 Brick Brick Fragment 2007A2 1 Copper Alloy Upholstery Tack Hand-Headed 2007A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 2007A2 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base 2007A2 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Indeterminate 2007A2 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Rim 2007A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2007A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Body 2007A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2007A2 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2007A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2007A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2007A2 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2007A2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2007A2 2 Iron Nail Fragment Indeterminate Tip Wrought/Forged 2007A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged 2007A2 1 Iron Nail Machine-Square Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 2007A2 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Machine-Cut 2007B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2007B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2007B1 1 Iron Nail Machine-Square Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut

94 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 2007B1 1 Faunal Specimen 2007B1 1 Glass Window Glass 2007B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Copper Wheel En Body 2008A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim 2008A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2008A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2008A2 2 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2008A2 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2008A2 9 Brick Fragment 2008A2 1 Glass Window Glass 2008A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim 2008A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 2008A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2008A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged 2008A3 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2008A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2008A3 7 Brick Fragment 2008B1 1 Brick Fragment 2009A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Body 2009A1 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body 2009A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim 2009A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base 2009A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2009A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2009A2 2 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 2009A2 1 Brick Fragment 2009A2 1 Slag/Clinker 2009A2 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body 2010A2 1 Brick Fragment 2010A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 2010A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2011A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2011A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2011A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2011A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2011A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2011A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2011A3 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base 2011A3 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2012A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body

95 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 2012B1 2 Faunal Specimen 2012B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2012B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2012B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 2012B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim 2012B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2012B2 1 Faunal Specimen 2012B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 2013A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2013A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 2013B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2013B1 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2013B1 1 Faunal Specimen 2014A2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2014A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2015A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2015A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2015A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2015A2 1 Glass Window Glass 2016A2 1 Iron Hinge Strap Wrought/Forged 2016A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Indeterminate Tip Wrought/Forged 2016A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged 2016A3 1 Brick Fragment 2017A2 1 ORGANIC Chinese Porcelain Red Wheel Thrown Painted Over Body 2018A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body 2018A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body 2019A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body 2019A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body 2019A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body 2019A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body 2020ZZ 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 2020ZZ 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body 2021ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 2022ZZ 1 Iron Staple Pointed End Wrought/Forged 2023ZZ 1 Porcelain Closure Lightening-Type Porcellaneous White Press Molded 2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Aqua Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Complete 2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Finish

96 Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element 2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body 2024ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base/Foot 2024ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim 2025ZZ 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2025ZZ 1 Iron Nail L-Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut 2025ZZ 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Pointed End Machine-Cut 2025ZZ 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Machine-Cut 2025ZZ 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body 2025ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Base 2025ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim 2025ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2025ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2026ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body 2026ZZ 1 Glass Wine Bottle Colorless Non-Ld Other Mold Decoration Machine Made Complete 2027A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 2028A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body 2028A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base 2028A2 1 Faunal Specimen 2028A2 3 Quartz Mineral Sample 2029A1 5 Iron Wire Barbed Drawn 2030A1 1 Brick Fragment 2031A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2032B1 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made 2032B1 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made 2033ZZ 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged 2034Z 1 Stoneware White Salt-Glazed Scr/Fill: Debased Blue Wheel Thrown Body

97 Appendix 2. Test Unit Locations

Test Unit Easting Northing Length E-W (ft.) Length N-S (ft.) Area (ft.2) 1858 19 -1 2 2 4 1859 39 -1 2 2 4 1860 79 -1 2 2 4 1861 59 -1 2 2 4 1862 99 -1 2 2 4 1863 119 -1 2 2 4 1864 135 -5 10 10 100 1865 155 -2.5 10 5 50 1866 179 -1 2 2 4 1867 199 -1 2 2 4 1868 219 -1 2 2 4 1869 239 -1 2 2 4 1870 139 -21 2 2 4 1871 119 -21 2 2 4 1872 99 -21 2 2 4 1873 79 -21 2 2 4 1874 79 -41 2 2 4 1875 59 -21 2 2 4 1876 39 -21 2 2 4 1877 19 -21 2 2 4 1878 59 -41 2 2 4 1879 139 19 2 2 4 1880 39 -41 2 2 4 1881 19 -41 2 2 4 1882 239 -21 2 2 4 1883 219 19 2 2 4 1884 199 -21 2 2 4 1885 179 -41 2 2 4 1886 119 -41 2 2 4 1887 179 -21 2 2 4 1888 159 -21 2 2 4 1889 139 -41 2 2 4 1890 159 -41 2 2 4 1891 159 19 2 2 4 1892 239 -41 2 2 4 1893 99 -41 2 2 4 1894 199 -41 2 2 4 1895 259 -41 2 2 4 1896 299 -41 2 2 4 1897 225 -15 10 10 100 1898 225 -25 10 10 100 1899 214 -15 10 8 80 1900 145 5 10 10 100 1901 179 -61 2 2 4 1902 145 15 10 10 100 1903 208 -18 4 4 16

98 Test Unit Easting Northing Length E-W (ft.) Length N-S (ft.) Area (ft.2) 1904 232 -19 4 2 8 1905 208 -32 4 4 16 1906 208 -25 10 4 40 1907 219 -61 2 2 4 1908 239 -61 2 2 4 1909 259 -61 2 2 4 1910 279 -61 2 2 4 1911 219 -81 2 2 4 1912 239 -81 2 2 4 1913 259 -81 2 2 4 1914 279 -81 2 2 4 1918 101.25 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1919 103.75 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1920 121.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1921 123.75 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1922 111.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1923 111.25 16.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1924 101.25 28.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1925 101.25 26.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1926 21.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1927 1.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1928 1.25 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1929 256.25 21.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1930 258.75 21.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1931 256.25 41.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1932 256.25 43.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1933 161.25 36.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1934 161.25 33.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1935 231.25 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1936 233.75 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1937 41.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1938 41.25 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1939 1.25 58.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1940 41.25 58.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1941 41.25 78.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1942 21.25 78.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1943 191.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1944 193.75 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1945 216.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1946 216.25 16.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1947 38.75 78.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1948 1.25 78.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1949 61.25 78.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1950 148.75 33.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1951 148.75 31.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1952 58.75 98.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1953 191.25 1.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1954 193.75 1.25 2.5 2.5 6.25

99 Test Unit Easting Northing Length E-W (ft.) Length N-S (ft.) Area (ft.2) 1955 148.75 23.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1956 148.75 21.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1957 156.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1958 156.25 16.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1959 41.25 98.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1960 61.25 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1961 81.25 58.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1962 166.25 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1963 168.75 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1964 166.25 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1965 168.75 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1966 206.25 51.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1967 206.25 53.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1968 151.25 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1969 153.75 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1970 176.25 13.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1971 176.25 11.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1972 201.25 28.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1973 201.25 26.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1974 181.25 26.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1975 183.75 26.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1976 148.75 58.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1977 148.75 56.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1978 151.25 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1979 153.75 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1980 151.25 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1981 153.75 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1982 161.25 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1983 161.25 -8.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1984 156.25 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1985 158.75 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1986 156.25 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1987 158.75 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1988 156.25 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1989 158.75 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1990 151.25 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1991 148.75 53.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 1992 148.75 51.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1993 146.25 -6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1994 148.75 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1996 151.25 11.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1997 153.75 11.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1998 156.75 11.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 1999 158.75 11.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 2001 148.75 48.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2000 150 60 1 1 1 2002 128.75 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2003 138.75 5.75 2.5 2.5 6.25

100 Test Unit Easting Northing Length E-W (ft.) Length N-S (ft.) Area (ft.2) 2004 151.25 13.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2005 136.25 -16.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 2006 136.25 -18.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2007 136.25 5.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2008 153.75 13.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2009 128.75 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 2010 116.25 -6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 2011 118.75 -6.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 2013 116.25 -23.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2014 146.25 -26.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 2015 148.75 -26.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 2016 98.75 -26.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 2017 98.75 -28.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2018 136.25 -48.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2019 138.75 -48.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2020 130 -20 0.5 0.5 0.25 2021 140 -10 0.5 0.5 0.25 2022 130 -10 0.5 0.5 0.25 2023 70 10 0.5 0.5 0.25 2027 108.75 -41.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 2028 111.25 -41.25 2.5 2.5 6.25 2029 301.25 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2030 291.25 28.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2031 167.25 24.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2032 126.25 28.75 2.5 2.5 6.25 2033 160 10 1 1 1

101